BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Tuesday 23 April (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Radiotherapy

Grahame Morris: What progress he has made on the commitment that patients would have access to appropriate radiotherapy wherever they lived.

Anna Soubry: I am pleased to say that from 26 March, £22.7 million of the Prime Minister’s fund to improve access to what is called intensity modulated radiotherapy—IMR in short—has already been committed. The money is being used to update machines and ensure that radiographers receive extra training if they need it. We are well on our way, especially as it is now a nationally commissioned service, so there is no reason why anybody should not have the access they need to this treatment.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Minister for that response, but is she aware that new guidelines released by NHS England for treating patients using stereotactic ablative radiotherapy—advanced radiotherapy—say that only commissioning for early stage lung cancer will be approved, and that other treatments for all other cancers can be paid for only in clinical trials? As no trials are being commissioned in England, can the Minister explain how the treatment for patients with prostate, liver and spinal cancer, who were receiving SABR treatment last month, will be funded in the future?

Anna Soubry: What I do know, having had a long meeting with my officials only this morning, is that the evidence, as they have explained it to me, is clear: SABR is effective only in a small number of people who have, unfortunately, a certain small tumour in their lungs, and it is not suitable for other treatments of cancers. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the matter further, my door is always open.

James Gray: The trouble with all these things is that medical science moves faster than the targets set by the Government. Does the Minister
	agree with me that proton beam therapy is now almost as important as radiotherapy? How much have the Government spent on this therapy, and how many patients have been helped by it?

Anna Soubry: We are building two new machines specifically to deliver that treatment. I accept that these things often take a long time, but those machines are planned to go in. In the meantime, NHS England has made it clear that people who need this specific type of treatment can receive it overseas and it will be funded accordingly.

Tessa Munt: Two years ago, the Prime Minister accepted the installation of CyberKnife as the latest in cancer radiosurgery equipment at the world-leading Royal Marsden hospital cancer centre. At the last Health Questions, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would accept one of the countless invitations to visit the Royal Marsden. The consultant clinical oncologist has issued and reissued that invitation, but has had no response from the Department. Could the Secretary of State now please visit CyberKnife at the Royal Marsden?

Anna Soubry: I have to tell the hon. Lady that, as she knows, there is some controversy over this particular treatment, which is backed by a very large and powerful American company. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), has visited, and I know that the Secretary of State has an extremely busy and full diary. It is not as simple as a visit; it is all about whether there is any clinical value.

Cancer

Eric Ollerenshaw: What steps his Department is taking to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer.

Steve Brine: What steps his Department is taking to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer.

Fiona Bruce: What steps his Department is taking to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer.

Anna Soubry: It would take me a very long time to give all the details of the Department’s work. In short, we have run a number of specific campaigns, both locally and regionally, to deal with a number of cancers. We will now evaluate whether those pilots have been successful. What I can say is that, such is the success of the lung cancer campaign, we will be recommissioning it in July.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I raise, in particular, the issue of poor outcomes in pancreatic and prostate cancer? The problem we face is how to achieve the earlier diagnosis that is needed by GPs, so that we can achieve better outcomes in terms of international comparisons.

Anna Soubry: It was a great pleasure to meet my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) to discuss prostate and pancreatic cancer. Those cancers are difficult because often the symptoms are not obvious. The “Know 4 sure” campaign highlights some of the
	symptoms associated with them. We are evaluating this matter, and if we think that there is benefit in a campaign specifically on those cancers, we will run that campaign.

Steve Brine: The Minister will be aware that the all-party group on breast cancer, which I co-chair, is holding an inquiry into older people and breast cancer, starting this afternoon. We look forward to seeing her there. What plans do the Government have to ensure that everyone affected by breast cancer, regardless of their age, is diagnosed at the earliest possible stage?

Anna Soubry: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and all those involved with the all-party group—I am indeed looking forward to this afternoon’s session. I particularly commend the group’s work on targeting women over 70. Again, we have run a pilot campaign on that and are evaluating the results, and if there is value in it, it will be rolled out in order to bring huge benefits.

Fiona Bruce: Given the link between smoking and cancer and the fact that 70% of smokers start before they are 18 and 94% before they are 25, what consideration have the Government given to introducing plain packaging in order to drive down the number of young people attracted to smoking in the first place?

Anna Soubry: We are considering what has been a huge consultation, but I must correct my hon. Friend—I am in no way criticising her—because it is not plain packaging, but what we call standardised packaging. If, like me, hon. Members were to see the cigarette packets now issued in Australia, they would realise that they are far from plain. Some would say that they are a counterfeiter’s nightmare, not a charter for counterfeiters.

John Healey: People remember the massive improvements in cancer care services under Labour. Now, more and more people are having to wait longer and longer for those crucial diagnostic cancer tests, when they might be worried sick about what they will have to face. Is the Minister happy that more people are waiting longer and what is she doing now to cut those waiting times?

Anna Soubry: We have invested £450 million in improving exactly the matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises, and I do not share his analysis one bit.

Valerie Vaz: As well as raising awareness of cancer, will the Minister clarify whether this new list of 28 prescribed drugs produced by the NHS Commissioning Board will increase access to the cancer drugs fund?

Anna Soubry: What I know is that the cancer drugs fund is delivering in a way that, if I may say so, was not delivered under the last Administration.

Margaret Ritchie: What discussions have taken place with Health ministerial colleagues in devolved Administrations on the need to share best practice in diagnosis, analysis of biopsies and future treatments and care for those suffering from different forms and types of cancer?

Anna Soubry: We are always open to discuss anything that can improve outcomes for anybody suffering from cancer, and certainly we are alert to all new research. As I said, if that involves talking to devolved Administrations, my officials do that in order to improve outcomes for people in England.

David Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most effective treatments in reducing the impact of prostate cancer is traditional Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture, and does she agree that it is crucial that we get the regulation of herbal practitioners in place as soon as we can?

Anna Soubry: All these things have to be evidence-based. I am reminded of the evidence that the chief medical officer gave recently on this subject.

Andrew Gwynne: A freedom of information survey by Labour showed that cancer networks saw their funding cut by 26% between 2010 and 2013 and lost 20% of their work force over the same period, losing vital skills and expertise along the way, despite repeated reassurances from the Government that funding for clinical networks would be protected. Even more shockingly, all this is happening at a time when the Department of Health has handed back £2.2 billion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How can the Minister justify handing vital NHS funding back to the Treasury when cancer networks are being cut, specialist staff and skills are being lost and thousands of nurses are being axed?

Anna Soubry: I think that that was about four questions in one, but I would certainly dispute all that has been said. Let me make this absolutely clear: we know that there was great success in the cancer networks, which is why we have extended them, so that they now include, for example, dementia and mental health, and far from cutting the overall money going to all the strategic networks, we have increased it by 27%.

Cardiovascular Disease

Christopher Pincher: What support his Department has given to local authorities and NHS commissioners to improve cardiovascular disease outcomes.

Daniel Poulter: On 5 March, we published the cardiovascular disease outcomes strategy, which included 10 key actions for commissioners and providers to ensure patients and carers get the best possible support. As set out in the strategy, we will continue to make data available to local authorities to see where their areas of greatest need are and to shape their own response accordingly.

Christopher Pincher: Will my hon. Friend support the efforts of local clinicians, Tamworth borough council and charities such as Tamworth in the Community, which are working with parents, teachers and children to educate them about the importance of healthy eating and exercise, to deal with the health challenges we have in Tamworth and tackle the rather unfair notoriety that Tamworth gained in the press?

Daniel Poulter: I commend the work being done locally in Tamworth to address this issue. As we know, one of the biggest public health challenges facing this country is obesity. The risk factors for cardiovascular disease include diabetes and high cholesterol. If we can tackle obesity and improve lifestyles, we will address both those risk factors directly, so I wish my hon. Friend’s local organisations every success in tackling those challenges.

Keith Vaz: As the Minister has said, those with diabetes are five times more likely than others to develop cardiovascular disease, which currently costs the national health service £9.8 billion a year. Will he commit to a public awareness campaign and issue guidelines for local health and wellbeing boards so that they make this a priority?

Daniel Poulter: I commend the right hon. Gentleman’s work in raising the profile of diabetes. A lot of the Government’s work is focused on the importance of improving public health in this country and in particular on obesity, and if we are to tackle that, we have to deal with diabetes. As a key part of that, we are now giving 40% of the public health money to local authorities to do exactly what he has just described: to focus money in the right places to tackle cardiovascular disease in those communities that most need it, particularly in inner-city areas.

Greg Mulholland: The role of local authorities in scrutinising NHS decisions is now even more important, yet the joint health overview and scrutiny committee of Yorkshire and Humber councils was consistently denied a number of important documents, which was one reason why the High Court ruled that the decision taken in the Safe and Sustainable review was unlawful. This is now in tatters. Will the Minister now confirm whether he will instruct NHS England not to appeal the High Court decision?

Daniel Poulter: Surely how valid evidence is is a matter for the court. I am sure my hon. Friend would recognise that there has to be a distinction between what we do here in Parliament and what is done in the courts. If NHS England would like to appeal the decision and if it thinks there are good grounds to do that, that is something it must do. The decision will then ultimately be made in the courts, on the basis of how valid that appeal is.

Liz Kendall: The best way to improve outcomes for heart disease patients and get the best value for public money is to help people to manage their condition at home. Can the Minister therefore explain the thinking behind the Government’s strategy of cutting one in five district nurses, so that delayed discharges from hospital due specifically to a lack of NHS community services rise by 40%, costing taxpayers £6 million a month as a result?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady and Opposition Members are fond of saying that we are cutting the NHS. It is their party that has said it will cut; they think it is irresponsible to increase funding for the NHS. We on the Government Benches have invested £12.5 billion more in the NHS. There are 6,000 more clinical staff working on the ground, focusing specifically on early intervention, early strategies and lifestyle. We now have
	almost 1,000 more health visitors working in the NHS and we have expanded the family nurse partnership programme. All these things will make a difference. Indeed, there is now a lot more joint commissioning between hospitals and primary care, to ensure that commissioning arrangements are in place to better support the role of community nurses and district nurses in preventive care and better look after people with long-term conditions.

Dementia

Mark Menzies: What steps his Department plans to take to improve dementia diagnosis rates and to reduce regional variations in such diagnoses.

Jeremy Hunt: Dementia diagnosis rates vary across the country, from 75% in the best areas to a shocking 31% in the worst areas. That is totally unacceptable, given the difference that we know a diagnosis and a good care plan can make to people who have dementia.

Mark Menzies: What steps is my right hon. Friend’s Department taking to ensure that GPs are adequately supported, so that his ambitious targets for dementia diagnosis are met?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a misconception among some GPs that a dementia diagnosis is pointless and cannot make a difference, when we know that in fact the correct medicines can help between one in three and one in four of those who have the condition. However, some GPs also have a point when they are concerned that it is difficult to access good services for people who have dementia. The way we will change GPs’ minds is for them to appreciate that something will change if someone gets a dementia diagnosis. That is the big challenge that this ministerial team has set the Department.

Jim Shannon: Does the Minister agree that there is much to be learned from the high rate of dementia diagnosis in Northern Ireland? Is not that an example of how important it is for the devolved powers to share information and tactics for success in their own areas with the other devolved bodies?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some of the devolved Administrations, particularly Scotland, actually do better than England in regard to dementia diagnosis, and one thing that we must learn from them is the value of a properly integrated care plan. I am working closely with the Minister of State to ensure that we deliver that in England.

Stephen Dorrell: My right hon. Friend said in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) that certain aspects of the treatment of dementia patients had to change. Does he agree that that should include the services that are delivered to them becoming more integrated, not only between hospitals and community health care services but between social care services and social housing support, in order to provide a proper joined-up package of care for people who receive such diagnoses?

Jeremy Hunt: I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. I was in the accident and emergency unit at Watford hospital last week when a lady with advanced dementia was admitted. She had bruises all over her face after having had a fall. The shocking reality was that that A and E department knew nothing about that lady. It did not know her medical history, and it did not know whether that was her normal condition. There was no proper joined-up link between the social care system and the NHS. Tackling that issue is probably the single biggest long-term and strategic challenge that we have to address in the NHS.

Stephen McCabe: Was Professor Malcolm Grant, the chairman of NHS England, talking about dementia sufferers when he said today that the NHS would have to charge for particular treatments? If not, will the Secretary of State specifically rule that out?

Jeremy Hunt: Professor Malcolm Grant did not say that. What he actually said was that if the NHS considered charging, he would oppose it. I agree with him; I would oppose it, too.

Patrick Mercer: I should like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), for his visit to Newark, which was a huge success. However, it has been pointed out that there is a distinct feeling in Newark that dementia patients are not being treated quite so quickly there as they are in other parts of Nottinghamshire. Will the Secretary of State please give that matter his attention?

Jeremy Hunt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). The variation in dementia diagnosis rates is something that we have to tackle urgently. In the end, the litmus test as to whether we are able to cope with an ageing population in the NHS will be how we deal with dementia, which now affects one in three people over the age of 65. There is still a lot of misunderstanding about the impact that a good diagnosis and care plan can have, and for the sake of my hon. Friend’s constituents and everyone else, this is an area in which we need to make urgent change.

Early Intervention

Graham Allen: If his Department will make early intervention a priority for clinical commissioning groups and public health officers.

Daniel Poulter: I commend the tremendous amount of work undertaken by the hon. Gentleman on early intervention. Yesterday, he and I attended the Early Intervention Foundation, which he has set up. We are talking a lot about legacies this week, and his legacy and the work that he has done to promote early intervention will certainly stand the test of time. The Government are committed to supporting that work, both through his foundation and through the work that we are doing to expand the family nurse partnership programme and the number of health visitors available to young families.

Graham Allen: I thank the Minister for those remarks, and I would like to thank those on both Front Benches for their support for the Early Intervention Foundation, which is greatly appreciated. Would the Minister accept that, in addition to having police and crime commissioners and councils promoting early intervention, the role of GPs, of directors of public health and of health and wellbeing boards will be absolutely central to getting early intervention plans and programmes to scale across the whole of England?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The health and wellbeing boards in particular will be well placed to bring together and join up what goes on in early interventions and to break down some of the silos that have existed in education, social services and health care. It is through the health and wellbeing boards that a lot of the work being done by health visitors and others to improve the life chances of many children, particularly in the poorest communities, can be taken forward at local level in a much stronger way.

Andrew Bridgen: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to encourage and help local authorities to focus on illness prevention and help people to lead healthier lives?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend will be aware that local authorities are now receiving 40% of the public health budget. That allows local authorities to have a much more nuanced approach to how and where they direct their budgets. It is of course desirable to focus on the early years to give each and every child the best start in life, to set good and healthy eating patterns and to support the work being done in the health service in expanding the health visitor programme. This also allows local authorities to address other public health challenges in the area by focusing, for example, on areas with high rates of teenage pregnancy, smoking or cardiovascular disease death.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister, but we do have quite a lot to get through, so shorter answers would help.

Peter Hain: What sort of early intervention have the Government ordered to prevent a contagious spread of measles from the outbreak in the Neath and Swansea area of more than 700 serious cases? Thousands of parents across Britain will have been tormented by the choice of whether to vaccinate their children for measles, mumps and rubella because of the scare. Surely the Minister should take serious action to instruct public health officials to combat this issue.

Daniel Poulter: We are taking exactly that action to make sure that the vaccine is available and to promote the uptake of it. The right hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that the problems and concerns about the failure of some families to take up the vaccine resulted from some mis-used data in the past. That was a regrettable incident concerning the use of medical data, and is unfortunately causing great problems now. We are committed to making sure that those vaccines are available to the children who need it.

Paul Burstow: When it comes to early intervention with the one in 10 children in this country who have a diagnosable mental health problem, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that those children all have access to talking therapies so that they get the right treatment at the right time, which will make a big difference for them?

Daniel Poulter: In his time in office, my right hon. Friend has done a tremendous amount to promote the cause of mental health and to get parity of treatment between mental and physical health. That is exactly what we propose to do with the money going into the talking therapies—to get in place those early interventions, not just for adults, but for children, too. We shall be taking that work forward in earnest in the years ahead.

Diane Abbott: Does the Minister agree that the most important form of early intervention is for the public to get prompt advice on their symptoms? Does he share my concern that a leaked report on the national performance of the 111 line shows that the service is in crisis with staff shortages, delays, abandoned calls, 11-hour waits for call-backs, staff being wrongly diverted to attend cats with diarrhoea and ambulance crews going without breaks for 12 or more hours? Is this not a trademark Government shambles?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady will be aware that it is important not to rush the roll-out of any service. That is why we kept in place the NHS Direct service in areas where rolling out the 111 service has been slower. A lot of good work is going on in early intervention; it focuses on giving local authorities the budget and the powers to make a difference to local communities. The Labour party should get behind that and do much more to support it. It is this Government who are making a difference in early years, and I hope that the Opposition can support us on that.

Tobacco Product Packaging

Dan Jarvis: When the Government plan to respond to the consultation on standardised packaging for tobacco products; and if he will bring forward legislative proposals on standardised packaging.

Anna Soubry: I am afraid that I cannot give a timetable, and I make no apology for the fact that this Government are taking a careful look at all the evidence that has come out of the consultation.

Dan Jarvis: Figures from Cancer Research UK show that more than 1,100 of the 10 to 14-year-olds in Barnsley are regular smokers. Given that countries such as Australia and New Zealand have now committed to standardised packaging, I ask the Minister again: are the Government planning to legislate to give millions of children one less reason to start smoking?

Anna Soubry: I find it most bizarre that the advice I am given by my officials—and I absolutely accept their advice—is that, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, because of judicial reviews of consultations, I am not allowed to have an opinion, so I do not give any
	opinion, notwithstanding the fact that many people would say that he advances a number of important arguments. I will say, however, that it is important to look at all the emerging evidence, including the evidence coming out of Australia. As he will no doubt know, Australia continues to face a legal challenge that is yet to be resolved. It is also important to be aware of that.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister agree that adult smokers have already made a conscious decision to disregard all the health warnings that are so highly publicised, and are therefore unlikely to be influenced by the appearance of a packet of cigarettes? Is not the best way of deterring children from smoking the setting of a good example by responsible parents who know how much money their children are spending without supervision, and what they are spending it on?

Anna Soubry: If only it were as simple as that. Emerging evidence that I have seen suggests that it is the attractiveness of the packets that leads young people to decide to take up smoking. It also suggests—it is important for us to bear this in mind—that standardised packaging is not intended to persuade those who choose to smoke to continue to do so, and will make no difference to their choices. The aim is to protect children and young people.

Kevin Barron: It is a well-known fact that for many decades cigarette packaging has been there to attract the eyes of not just current smokers, but those who are yet to become smokers. Given that 50% of people who smoke die prematurely, it is clear that, over those many decades, the tobacco industry’s intention has been to attract new smokers, including young children. The sooner we get on with standardising packaging, the better.

Anna Soubry: As I have said, I am precluded from giving any personal opinion, but I am sure that we will all take on board what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Recent press reports have revealed that as many as a third of the number of cigarettes sold in the London area are contraband. Will the Minister discuss the matter with those in other Departments, in order to ensure that the objective that we are trying to achieve by standardising packaging will be achieved by that means?

Anna Soubry: I shall be meeting the relevant Home Office Minister today to discuss that very issue, but let me repeat that, far from being a counterfeiter’s dream, the packets produced in Australia would clearly be a nightmare here. A variety of colours, watermarks and holograms, and all manner of other things, can be attached to them, which is why they are described as “standardised” rather than “plain”.

Catherine McKinnell: This decision is taking too long, and those who care about the impact of smoking on children are at a loss to understand why. Given the U-turn on minimum alcohol pricing, the delaying of the sexual health strategy and, now, the stalling on standardised packaging, I must ask whether the Government have simply given up on public health.

Anna Soubry: And it was all going so well. I will take no lectures from Labour Members, who had 13 years in which to resolve this issue, but did not do so because they knew that these were difficult and tricky matters, and that it was important for all the evidence to be considered properly. I do not know what peculiar gestures Opposition Front Benchers are making, but they are clearly not listening and understanding when it comes to stuff that they themselves must have considered when they were in government.

Muscle-Wasting Conditions

Mark Durkan: What steps the Government plan to take to ensure that patients with rare and very rare muscle-wasting conditions have access to high cost drugs when such treatments become available.

Norman Lamb: Our priority is to ensure that patients in England, including those with rare and very rare muscle-wasting conditions, have access to new and effective treatments on terms that represent value to the NHS and the taxpayer.

Mark Durkan: The all-party parliamentary group for muscular dystrophy, which has been conducting an inquiry, was told recently that patients who are experiencing muscle-wasting conditions, and their families, are concerned about the possibility that they will be denied access to potential treatment because of regulatory barriers, and/or on cost grounds. Will the Minister meet the all-party group to discuss measures for the removal of any such impediments?

Norman Lamb: I am certainly willing to meet the all-party group, but I think that significant new opportunities are emerging. For example, from this month the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence will be responsible for the evaluation of new drugs for the treatment of rare conditions, and I think that that is a very good thing.

Gary Streeter: One of my constituents, a seven-year-old boy, has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. His family are pinning their hopes on a new drug called ataluren, which has not yet completed its trials. Can the Minister give me any idea when it might become available?

Norman Lamb: I understand that the manufacturer of ataluren has applied for conditional approval from the regulatory authorities. We await the outcome of that process, but I am afraid that I cannot give a time scale for it.

Chi Onwurah: Eculizumab is a high-cost drug that makes a profound difference to the lives of people with a rare kidney disorder, yet the Department has rejected the recommendation of the Advisory Group for National Specialised Services to make it available to all patients, instead referring it to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which will delay any decision by at least a year. Will the Minister meet me and specialists from my Newcastle constituency to discuss how we can ensure those patients are not adversely affected by this delay?

Norman Lamb: I am certainly happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady, and to look into the concerns she raises and get back to her on them.

George Freeman: As the Minister is aware, the active involvement of patients in biomedical research is one of the areas in which Britain is increasingly leading. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and the Empower: Access to Medicine group and Les Halpin, who is suffering from a terminal disease and is launching a campaign for greater patient involvement in access to rare drugs. Will the Minister meet me and my hon. Friend to take that forward?

Norman Lamb: I seem to be ready to agree to several meetings and I will certainly add that one to my list. I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend—and I should also pay tribute to him for the work he is doing in this area.

Hospices

Tony Baldry: What steps he is taking to make the services of hospices more available to NHS patients.

Norman Lamb: We are supporting NHS England to develop a fairer and more transparent funding system for hospices, to be in place by 2015. We have made £60 million in capital available to hospices to improve their physical environments, and will continue to provide over £10 million in central funding for children’s hospices.

Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new NHS commissioning arrangements should increase the opportunities for hospices in the voluntary sector, such as the excellent Katharine House hospice in my constituency, to provide palliative care and terminal care provision for NHS patients?

Norman Lamb: I pay tribute to the hospice movement, including Katharine House in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is crazy that we are spending a lot of public money on caring for people at the end of life in places where they do not want to be. Most people do not want to end their life in hospital, yet about 50% of people still die in hospital. We are looking to create a new funding regime where money will follow the patient, to ensure people’s choice is respected so they can die where they want to, and so that hospices have fair funding.

Barbara Keeley: I recently had a case of very poor care of a terminally ill patient in the last few days of her life. She was let down by a GP who refused to prescribe the pain relief she needed and a district nursing service that provided wholly inadequate support. Given what the Minister has just said and that 20% of people want to die at home, what action will be taken to ensure that such cases do not happen and that instead we start to provide much better support for people so they can die peacefully at home?

Norman Lamb: My ambition is that the UK have a global reputation for the best possible care at the end of life. Whether we are talking about the Liverpool care pathway and concerns that have been raised about some care in hospital or care in the community and caring for
	people at home at the end of life, it is essential that people have a dignified death and the best possible care. Everything we are doing is aimed at achieving that. Where there are specific cases such as the one the hon. Lady raises, the relatives have the right to pursue a complaint, and ought to do so if care has fallen below an acceptable standard.

Cancer

John Baron: How the NHS will be held to account on the experiences of cancer patients using the NHS.

Anna Soubry: The Secretary of State made it very clear to NHS England in his mandate that we expect to see an improvement in patient experience.

John Baron: The Francis report recommended that the NHS be held to account on patient experiences. Given that the national cancer patient experience survey is a proven tool in driving up the quality of care, will the Minister endorse calls for the survey to be carried out annually, and support the development of a clinical commissioning group outcomes indicator set indicator based on the results in order to incentivise CCGs to improve cancer patient experience?

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments; as he knows, these are now matters for NHS England. I will make sure it is aware of what he has said and his urging it to do both those things for the obvious benefits they would have for a cancer patient’s experience.

Jamie Reed: The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is absolutely right: it is essential that the NHS is held to account for the experiences of cancer patients and patients with other conditions, too. Accountability has undoubtedly been weakened, however, as a result of the NHS reorganisation that came into effect this month. Last week, the outgoing deputy chief executive of the NHS, David Flory, said that the loss of experience in the NHS is greater than he has ever seen and that hospitals have been left struggling as a result. How can a service stripped of so much skill, knowledge and expertise provide the accountability that patients deserve?

Anna Soubry: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s question depicts a situation that I simply do not recognise. As I visit hospitals and other organisations, both in my constituency and across the country, I am told that there has been a huge improvement, especially in commissioning—[Interruption.] No, by front-line clinicians, who talk with enthusiasm about how the commissioning of services has improved because now at last the clinicians—those who know best—are in charge, and not, as has often been the case, faceless bureaucrats and managers.

Hospital Services: Trafford

Kate Green: When he expects to take a decision on the reconfiguration of hospital services in Trafford.

Daniel Poulter: Following a referral from the joint Manchester and Trafford health overview and scrutiny committee, the Secretary of State requested initial advice from the independent reconfiguration panel. That was received on 27 March 2013. The Secretary of State will consider the advice and make a decision in due course.

Kate Green: This issue is of huge importance to my constituents, who are concerned about access to accident and emergency and acute services and about delays in discharge into the community in the absence of adequate community provision. So far, Ministers have refused to meet me so that I can make representations about my constituents’ concerns. Will the Minister give me an undertaking that no final decision will be taken until that meeting can take place so that local concerns can be properly taken into account?

Daniel Poulter: I am sure that we would be happy to meet the hon. Lady; I am certainly happy to do so. A number of the concerns she has outlined in the House and at a local level will be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he considers the report.

Graham Brady: I welcome the Minister’s undertaking to meet local Members to discuss these important matters and I endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the importance of a timely resolution. The longer this goes on, the greater the cost will be to local health services.

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and it is important that a timely conclusion is reached. It is also right, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, that the need to improve community services and preventive care and to provide better support for people with long-term conditions in the Trafford area should be considered.

Paul Goggins: I also welcome the Minister’s agreement to meetings. Will he and the Secretary of State carefully consider the likely impact of downgrading accident and emergency facilities at Trafford general and the implications for nearby Wythenshawe hospital? Does the Minister agree that a failure to provide proper facilities at Wythenshawe for the anticipated additional 4,500 accident and emergency patients, the additional admissions stemming from that and the extra beds required could lead to long delays and a diminution in the service?

Daniel Poulter: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited Wythenshawe hospital and can pay testament to the high-quality care available there. All the points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised will, of course, be taken into account when a decision is made.

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Linda Riordan: What steps the Government plans to take to improve public awareness of the signs and symptoms of early rheumatoid arthritis.

Norman Lamb: We have made earlier diagnosis a clear objective in our mandate to the NHS. It is for NHS England and local commissioners to undertake appropriate awareness campaigns on arthritis. We very much welcome the appointment of Professor Peter Kay as the first national clinical director of musculoskeletal disease to advise on specific initiatives.

Linda Riordan: I thank the Minister for his reply. May I ask him for another meeting to discuss this very important matter and take forward further action on it?

Norman Lamb: The meetings are stacking up, but I would love to meet the hon. Lady. She should just get in touch with my office and we will get it arranged.

Anne McIntosh: I will spare my hon. Friend a meeting, but will he tell me what evidence there is to suggest that there was more awareness and earlier diagnosis when spa towns such as Harrogate and Bath provided spa facilities for those most badly affected by rheumatism and arthritis?

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. Although I have not agreed to meet her, I would be happy to have an informal discussion with her at some later stage.

Mr Speaker: I think we will take that as a meeting.

Royal Lancaster Infirmary

David Morris: Whether there are plans to close the accident and emergency department at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary.

Daniel Poulter: I would like to reassure my hon. Friend that there are no plans and never have been any plans to close the accident and emergency department at Royal Lancaster Infirmary.

David Morris: I thank my hon. Friend for that robust answer. Does he agree that the local Labour party fabricated the scare story that the A and E department was going to close? It was never going to close, as he has just stated. Will he assist me in taking the local Labour party’s bogus petition offline?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that it is wrong of any political party—in this case, the Labour party—to focus on scaremongering when there is no basis in truth. At no point have there been plans to close Royal Lancaster Infirmary.

Kettering General Hospital

Philip Hollobone: What assessment he has made of (a) the pressures faced by Kettering general hospital’s accident and emergency department and (b) what can be done by Kettering general hospital to achieve national accident and emergency transition time targets.

Daniel Poulter: Local health care commissioners have worked with the trust, Monitor and NHS England’s Hertfordshire and South Midlands local area team to ensure that robust plans are in place to improve the trust’s performance against accident and emergency waiting time performance indicators.

Philip Hollobone: The greatest difficulty for Kettering is that it has the sixth fastest household growth rate in the country, and A and E admissions are up 12% year on year. Will the Minister ensure that the NHS Commissioning Board makes sure that population estimates are put into its funding formula?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will take up the matter further with the NHS Commissioning Board because it is important that when we are commissioning services we take into account future population growth.

Andy Sawford: Along with the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I shall meet the chief executive and chair of Kettering general hospital this Friday to discuss the latest steps in the Healthier Together review. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we urge on Kettering general hospital and all the other decision makers that we must maintain our proper accident and emergency and other vital services at Kettering general hospital?

Daniel Poulter: It certainly sounds as though there is a need for an accident and emergency department in Kettering. These are matters for the local commissioning boards to take forward, but it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman or anyone else to say that as part of the Healthier Together programme there are any site-specific proposals that would in any way threaten Kettering accident and emergency department.

Topical Questions

David Rutley: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: In a week when we are remembering the remarkable contribution made by Margaret Thatcher to our national life, we should also mark the extraordinary contribution made by someone else who died last week—Professor Sir Robert Edwards, the Nobel prize-winning doctor who pioneered modern IVF treatment. One in seven couples in this country experience fertility problems and he has given them hope and, in many cases, wonderful happiness. The whole House will want to applaud not just his scientific boldness, but his moral courage in confronting what was considered at the time to be an extremely difficult ethical issue.

David Rutley: In the light of the recent measles outbreak in south Wales, does my right hon. Friend agree that the claims made by Dr Andrew Wakefield about the MMR vaccine are both discredited and completely wrong?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. What Andrew Wakefield said had no scientific basis and caused huge damage and worry to many thousands of parents. It is very important to reiterate that the scientific way to prevent measles, which can be a horrible and even a fatal disease, is to make sure that children have had two doses of MMR. Parents of children of any age who have not had those doses should contact their GP, particularly in the current circumstances.

Andy Burnham: Accident and emergency departments across England are being closed, even though all are under intense pressure. For 11 weeks running, the NHS has missed the Government’s national A and E target. Last week, in places, one in three patients waited more than four hours in scenes not seen since the bad old days of the mid-1990s. What clearer symbol of the growing crisis in A and E is there than a tent as a makeshift ward in the car park at Norwich? The Secretary of State’s failure to address that cannot continue. Nursing jobs have been lost, ambulances are queuing outside A and E and patients are being treated in car parks. When will he get a grip?

Jeremy Hunt: The statistic that the right hon. Gentleman will not give the House is that for the year as a whole, which ended last March, the Government hit our A and E target. Furthermore, he still will not tell the House about the disaster that is happening in Labour-controlled Wales, where the A and E target has not been hit since 2009. He still refuses to condemn what is happening there. There is a lot of pressure on A and E, because 1 million more people are using A and E every year, compared with just two years ago. What are the root causes? They are poor primary care alternatives that date directly to the disastrous GP contract negotiated by his Government, since when more than 4 million additional people have been using A and E every year, social care and hospital sectors that are not joined up—Labour had 13 years to sort that out but did nothing—and problems in recruitment that have been made a great deal worse by his disastrous decision to implement the working time directive. It is time he sorted out his own issues before trying to criticise the Government for sorting them out.

Paul Uppal: The all-party group on men’s health, of which I am vice-chairman, has assisted in research that seems to show that men’s poor sexual health is often symptomatic of more serious problems, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Will my hon. Friend assure me that all robust measures are being put in place to ensure that that is not overlooked and that men do not die unnecessarily because that situation is taken for granted?

Anna Soubry: I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend has said, and the sexual health document we published in March relates specifically to those matters. Men are not very good at going to see their GP, a nurse or another health professional when they fear that they might need some sort of assistance. It is beholden on all men to follow the lead of women.

Mary Glindon: Evidence from the all-party muscular dystrophy group’s inquiry into access to high-cost drugs for rare diseases has highlighted the importance in clinical trials of centres of excellence, such as the International Centre for Life, which is based in Newcastle. Will the Minister, with NHS North of England, meet me to discuss changes to specialist neuromuscular care in my area as a result of the new NHS set-up?

Norman Lamb: I am tempted to say no, but I would not get away with it—so, yes, of course the hon. Lady can join all the rest and arrange to meet me. I would be very happy to discuss her concerns. While I am at the Dispatch Box, may I pay tribute to the International Centre for Life, which does really important work?

Mr Speaker: The Minister can report to his family just how popular a fellow he is.

Annette Brooke: The all-party group on global tuberculosis has just published a report on rising rates of drug-resistant TB. One recommendation is for a national strategy for TB in the UK. Will the Minister comment on that? The officers of the all-party group would also be grateful if he fitted us into his very busy schedule of meetings.

Anna Soubry: My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is having a break on that one. The continuing outbreaks of TB cause a lot of concern, especially in certain communities. I have no hesitation in agreeing to meet my hon. Friend to explain what NHS England is doing and the development of a national strategy.

Andy Burnham: Here comes another request for a meeting with the very obliging Minister. Last month he promised the House that he would rewrite the section 75 regulations to rule out enforced competitive tendering in the NHS. However, before Easter the respected House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said this of his redraft:
	“The substitute Regulations are substantially the same as the original Regulations.”
	It is no surprise that it seems to many that the Government are intent on privatisation by the back door, putting large parts of the NHS up for sale. With a crunch vote in the Lords next week, it is turning into another shambles. I make this offer to the Minister: will he again agree to withdraw the regulations and to sit down with us and the professions this week and come up with wording that is acceptable to all?

Norman Lamb: This really is the most outrageous scaremongering from the Labour party. In March 2010, the Labour Government issued guidance on European procurement law that described the limited circumstances in which one could avoid going out to tender. The wording used in these regulations is exactly the same as that used by Labour in March 2010, yet Labour Members will not admit that. There are also added safeguards in the redrafted regulations to ensure that there is a clear incentive for integrating and co-ordinating services for the benefit of patients.

Priti Patel: The Secretary of State is aware of the widespread management failures of East of England ambulance trust, and last month we saw the belated resignation of its chair. Will he ensure that the trust makes patient care the No. 1 priority, and will he join me in calling for its remaining non-executive directors, who presided over these management failings, to reflect on their own positions?

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaigning on this. There must be full accountability for what went wrong in that ambulance trust. It is absolutely a top priority for me and my Ministers, two of whom represent Norfolk and Suffolk, to sort out what is happening in the trust, and that is why very decisive action has been taken.

Catherine McKinnell: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), several of my constituents with desperately ill relatives are very angry about the Government referring to NICE a decision on the use of eculizumab. The continuing delay is risking lives and also means that people have several invasive treatments that could well cost more. To save space in the Minister’s diary, may I add a request to join the meeting with my hon. Friend to talk about how this dangerous delay is causing very great distress to many constituents?

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady raises a very important point, and I would be delighted for her to join the meeting rather than my having another one.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering general hospital’s new £30 million-pound foundation wing has a new 16-bed intensive care unit, 28-bed cardiac unit and 32-bed children’s unit, and it opens to patients for the first time this coming Saturday. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take this opportunity to congratulate all those at Kettering general hospital who have brought this project to fruition?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be absolutely delighted to do that. I had an excellent visit to Kettering hospital that was hosted by my hon. Friend, and I saw at first hand just how hard people are working in tough circumstances, with big increases in A and E admissions causing a great deal of pressure throughout the hospital. One had a sense at the hospital that there was a mission to turn things around and make things better, and a management team who were totally committed to doing that. I congratulate them and all the front-line staff who are doing such an important job for the people of Kettering.

Meg Hillier: A year ago, GPs in Hackney bid to run the out-of-hours services. Earlier this year, they were told that it had to be tendered because the board was fearful of legal challenge from private health companies. Who is running the NHS—the Secretary of State or the private health company lawyers?

Daniel Poulter: That is an absolutely extraordinary question given that it was the previous Labour Government’s decision to contract out out-of-hours services in the first place, which has led to the massive pressure on so many A and Es. The regulations in place for many of these arrangements were laid by the previous Labour Government.

John Pugh: What is the Department doing to deal with the difficulties presented by poor data sharing between health and social care agencies and the threat to integration that that presents?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I pay tribute to him for raising this issue frequently. We will not have properly integrated, joined-up health and care services unless we crack the issue of data sharing. There need to be protections for people so that they can prevent their data from being shared if they do not want that, but by the same merit we have to make sure that there is better availability. For example, delayed discharges from hospitals, which are causing pressure on A and Es, would be directly helped if we cracked this. That is why we have called for a paperless NHS by 2018.

Meg Munn: Under the previous Government, my constituents could get an appointment with their GP within 48 hours. I recently heard of a wait for a routine appointment taking three weeks. Is not this one of the reasons there is such pressure on A and Es, and will the Secretary of State reintroduce the 48-hour appointment?

Jeremy Hunt: The reason there is so much pressure on A and Es is the disastrous GP contract negotiated by the hon. Lady’s party in government, since when—I do not know whether she was listening to what I said earlier—an additional 4 million people every year are going to our A and Es. That is what is causing the huge pressure, and that is what we are determined to put right.

Steve Brine: The Secretary of State will know that the number of people donating organs after their death has risen by 50% in the past five years. Does he credit the network of specialist nurses who support bereaved families in hospital for that increase and, if so, what lessons does he take from that?

Jeremy Hunt: This is an example of a programme that has been a huge success and I pay tribute to the work done by the previous Government as well as this Government in making sure that we can tackle this very serious problem. All I would say to my hon. Friend is that three people still die every day, I believe, because we are not able to get the organ donations we need. We should not think that, despite the success, we have solved this problem. There is much work to do and I personally think that it is something that everyone should think about doing. It can be a source of personal pride to put oneself on the organ donation list and we should all encourage our constituents to think about it as well.

Jenny Chapman: I have listened very carefully to what the Secretary of State has said on A and E, but he has not addressed the fact that under the previous Government waiting times reduced and under his Government they are growing and are now the longest waiting times for more than a decade, so what is he going to do?

Jeremy Hunt: As I said to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) earlier, we actually hit our A and E waiting time target last year. If the hon. Lady is talking about waiting times in general, the number of people waiting for more than a year for an operation was 18,000 under the previous Government, and the figure has fallen to just 800 under this Government.

Andrew George: If there is a smidgeon of space in any of the Ministers’ diaries, is there a chance that they could meet me and representatives of the nursing profession to address not the issue that I think the Government are saying they are opposed to—mandatory nurse to patient ratios on wards—but that of adequate registered nurse levels on hospital wards?

Daniel Poulter: Of course, I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further. He can be reassured that I have regular discussions on these matters with representatives from the nursing profession, both in my clinical work and, more specifically, in my ministerial roles.

John Cryer: The Secretary of State said earlier that 1 million extra people are attending A and Es annually, but a few minutes later he said that the figure was 4 million. Which one is it?

Jeremy Hunt: It is an additional 4 million since the disastrous changes to the GP contract and an additional 1 million since the last election.

Sarah Wollaston: In Brixham in my constituency, 94% of five-year-olds are protected against measles. Just up the road in Totnes the figure is only 70%. There are many reasons for the variation, but
	does the Secretary of State share my concern that if parents believe they are protected by, for example, homeopathy products, they might be less likely to use an evidence-based treatment? Will he make an unequivocal statement that such products will not give any protection?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do so and thank my hon. Friend for bringing up the issue. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that homeopathic products can provide protection against measles. The right thing to do is to get two doses of the MMR jab. As I said earlier, anyone whose children, whatever their age, have not had those two doses should contact their GP.

Lucy Powell: As we have heard, A and E waiting times are at their worst level for a decade, yet we hear of proposed A and E reconfigurations based on tackling so-called inappropriate presentations. Does the Secretary of State agree that that approach is the wrong way around and that he would be better off tackling why people are going to A and E first, before he embarks on any reconfigurations?

Jeremy Hunt: That is exactly what we are doing. We are looking at the root causes of the fact that admissions to A and E are going up so fast—namely, that there is such poor primary care provision; that, as we discussed earlier, changes to the GP contract led to a big decline in the availability of out-of-hour services; and, that health and social care services are so badly joined up. That is how we are going to tackle this issue with A and E, and that is what we are doing.

Stewart Jackson: I am delighted to learn that there will shortly be a new national clinical director for neurological conditions, focusing in particular on conditions such as Tourette’s syndrome. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that that appointment, which is so long overdue, will be expedited at the earliest opportunity?

Norman Lamb: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the real value of this appointment and I think that the clinical director’s work will emphasise the importance of addressing conditions such as that to which he referred. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is showing such clear support for this initiative.

Abortion Statistics

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Fiona Bruce: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to compile statistics on gender ratios of foetuses aborted in the United Kingdom, and where available overseas; and for connected purposes.
	It is a tragedy that, in some countries, the words “It’s a girl” are not always a source of joy but sometimes of danger. The abortion of baby girls occurs in huge numbers simply because of their gender. The UN states that it is a problem of “genocide proportions”, with one expert estimating that gendercide has cost the lives of about 200 million women and girls worldwide over the past 30 years.
	The practice is pervasive in China. The country’s one-child policy and its traditional preference for boys have led to widespread abandonment, infanticide and forced abortions. China now has 37 million more young males than females. We hear of towns and villages where young men outnumber young women by up to 30:1. Quoting China’s official figures, the Financial Times stated recently that there have been 330 million abortions since the one-child policy was introduced—a policy tragically indirectly aided and abetted for many years by funds provided by successive British Governments.
	Similarly, there are markedly more males than females in India, with various regions facing serious and growing gender imbalances. The murder of a student who was gang-raped on a Delhi bus at the end of last year sparked outrage across India and shone a spotlight on the place of women in Indian society. That and the country’s long history of expensive dowry gifts on the marriage of a daughter are among the factors that are resulting in the illegal but widespread practice of female gendercide.
	Female gendercide in such countries is fuelling human trafficking and sexual slavery. It is resulting in tragic practices such as the kidnapping, sale and imprisonment of young girls in places far from their home towns to act as so-called “wives”. Such avoidance of female births is gender discrimination in its worst form. It constitutes violence against women even before they have a chance to live.
	Why am I relating these tragic situations in this place today, when so many Members are well aware of them and condemn them? The reason is that if we are to condemn gendercide in countries such as China and India, we must be ready to condemn and challenge any suggestion that gendercide is taking place in the UK. I acknowledge and respect the wide range of sincerely held views on abortion, but such wider discussions are not the subject of this ten-minute rule motion. The motion seeks to draw the House’s attention to indications that illegal gendercide appears to be taking place in this country. I hope that the House can unite in registering profound shock at even the possibility that that it is happening, in whatever proportion.
	The House will have seen early-day motion 936, an all-party motion that I tabled on this topic. It has attracted more than 50 supportive signatures. I am
	therefore confident that the concerns about this issue are shared by a number of Members from all parties in the House.
	On 8 January, the Department of Health confirmed in a written answer to my noble Friend Lord Alton of Liverpool that there are discrepancies in the balance between the number of boys and girls born in the UK to some groups of women that
	“potentially fall outside of the range considered possible without intervention.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 January 2013; Vol. 742, c. WA2.]
	That indicates that there may be evidence that a significant number of abortions are taking place on the grounds of gender or sex selection, a practice that is wholly illegal in this country. Any doctor who performed a termination on that basis would potentially be committing a criminal offence.
	I welcome the decision of Ranjit Bikhu and other British Asian women to establish a campaign to challenge anti-girl and anti-life attitudes and practices. It must never be a matter of choice to end the life of a girl merely because of her gender.
	An investigation by The Daily Telegraph in 2012 uncovered strong evidence, including filmed evidence, that doctors at some British clinics are agreeing to terminate pregnancies by arranging abortions on the grounds of gender and to produce the relevant paperwork. The investigation also exposed a practice termed “family balancing”, with boys being aborted too, thus stretching the possibility of gendercide taking place in the UK well beyond certain cultural groups. One doctor, highly experienced in this field, said he believes the practice is “fairly widespread”.
	Technological advancements in prenatal diagnostic tests now enable the gender of a fetus to be determined at 10 weeks’ gestation. As that technology continues to develop and becomes widely available, there is much concern that it will increase requests for abortions when the gender of an unborn child is not what a mother or father were hoping for.
	My Bill reminds the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that abortion on the grounds of gender is illegal in this country, and it calls on the Department of Health to put in place procedures to record the gender of babies aborted under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967, once the sex can be determined. The Bill would also impose tougher penalties on anyone found to have facilitated the abortion of a child because of its gender, or made arrangements to travel overseas for such an outcome. In addition, it calls for further consideration of the practice and implications of the wide, deeply concerning and, in some countries, extensive practice of female gendercide overseas.
	Here in the United Kingdom, a country that prides itself on striving for gender equality and tackling discrimination in all its forms, any indication of this most fundamental form of gender discrimination and violence against women must surely be investigated further. A key purpose of my Bill is to highlight concerns about abortion on the grounds of sex selection taking place in the UK, and to remind us all, whether regulators, prosecuting authorities, doctors, the Department of Health or, crucially, Ministers, that we cannot turn a blind eye to the issue and should be proactive in preventing, challenging and stopping it as something that is wholly unacceptable in the UK, as well as abroad.
	Before I say “I commend this Bill to the House”, this would until yesterday have been the end of my speech. Quite remarkably, however, bearing in mind the fact that my Bill is called the Abortion Statistics Bill as set down several weeks ago, just yesterday the Department of Health announced a consultation on abortion statistics and their publication. I would flatter myself by thinking there was any connection; none the less it gives me the opportunity to mention the issue. I understand that the Department of Health is seeking the public’s view on the publication of abortion statistics, in order—and I quote from its overview—
	“to ensure that the reports remain relevant and useful.”
	In the light of the causes for concern that I have highlighted today, I trust that the Department will consider including in those statistics a record of the gender of babies aborted, if ascertainable. I hope that many responses by the public to the consultation will support that call.
	Finally, in further support of my motion, I draw the House’s attention to the recent call by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for members states to
	“collect the sex ratio at birth, monitor its development and take prompt action to tackle possible imbalances.”
	I understand that the Department of Health is currently finalising its response to the Assembly on that issue, and I note the comment from the Health Minister Earl Howe that
	“this is an important piece of work and demonstrates how seriously this issue is being taken not just in this country but across Europe.”
	Let us ensure that we lead the way in monitoring, challenging and—most important—preventing this deeply worrying practice. I commend this Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Fiona Bruce, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Mrs Mary Glindon, Jim Dobbin, Robert Flello, Pat Glass, Mr Virendra Sharma, Jim Shannon, Rosie Cooper, Daniel Kawczynski and Jeremy Lefroy present the Bill.
	Fiona Bruce accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April, and to be printed (Bill 158).

Gareth Thomas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance and assistance. I tabled a round-robin question on 4 December 2012, asking how many computers, mobile telephones, BlackBerrys and other pieces of IT equipment had been lost or stolen in 2010-11 and 2011-12. I have received interesting replies from every Department except the Cabinet Office. I chased an answer on 16 January, expecting one on 21 January; I raised the matter at business questions on 7 February, and the Leader of the House kindly endeavoured to get me an answer; and I raised the continuing lack of an answer again on 26 March. I am always grateful when Ministers agree to allow themselves to be held to account by the House, but I wonder whether you could give me some guidance on the further steps I might take to return to a state of grace on this particular question.

Mr Speaker: I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that I should have hoped that it would not have been necessary for him to take further steps, but, as the saying goes, we are where we are. First, I might suggest that he consults the Leader of the House, who I know attaches a premium to timely and substantive replies. Secondly, he might wish to have another go at business questions. Thirdly, he should rest content that his remarks today will be transmitted to the relevant Minister without delay. The situation is disappointing, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is responsible for the co-ordination of Government policy, among other matters. Fourthly, I advise the hon. Gentleman, if he remains disquieted about the matter, to raise it with the Procedure Committee, whose Chairman, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), will, I am sure, lend a sympathetic ear. I hope my advice is of use to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas).

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Charities

That the draft Small Charitable Donations Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 14 February, be approved.—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes

That this House takes note of Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 26 February 2013, submitted by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, relating to a draft Directive on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR), and a draft Regulation on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes (Regulation on consumer ODR); and supports the Government’s general position to increase consumer confidence and enhance the internal market as intended by the proposed legislation.—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill (Programme)(No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order. No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 5 November 2012 (Growth and Infrastructure Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	2. The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 TABLE 
			 Lords Amendments Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 No. 25 45 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments. 
			 Nos. 7, 1 to 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 40 Two hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	4. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	5. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

[Relevant document: the Seventh Report of Communities and Local Government Committee, The Committee’s response to Government’s consultation on permitted development rights for homeowners, HC 830.]
	Consideration of Lords amendments

Mr Speaker: Before we commence our consideration, I should inform the House that the tag referring to the seventh report from the Communities and Local Government Committee was omitted, in error, from the Order Paper. Details are available from the Vote Office.

Michael Fallon: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25.
	Back in October, the Government introduced a Bill to this House that contained a number of important growth measures designed to help stimulate the economy. I am very pleased to report that both Houses of Parliament have given the Bill the priority it deserves, and that six months after its introduction both Houses have completed their consideration. We must now reach agreement with the other place on the final version of the Bill.
	Let me explain that the Government agree with 38 of the 40 amendments that have been made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will address those in the second group of amendments for debate. It is right that we set out our reasons for our disagreement with the other place in two important respects.
	The Government do not support amendment 25, which seeks to remove clause 27—a clause that this House supported and that would establish the new employment status of employee shareholder. I urge the House to confirm its view that this imaginative proposal should continue to be made available and clause 27 should be retained.
	Clause 27 establishes a new employment status in our labour market—the employee shareholder—in addition to the existing categories of worker and employee. Employee shareholders will have more employment rights than workers but fewer rights than employees. Importantly, employee shareholders will be given at least £2,000 of shares in the company they work for, or in its parent company. The first £2,000 of value will not attract income tax or national insurance contributions, and the first £50,000 of shares will not be subject to capital gains tax.
	British companies are competing in a global race to increase their competitiveness and create wealth. What is at stake here is choice and a new status that companies can use to give themselves a competitive edge and more flexibility in deciding how to structure their work force. By combining share ownership and favourable tax treatment—with appropriate steps to prevent any tax avoidance—we are giving companies, especially young companies, a tool that may tip the balance in their favour as they seek to attract high-calibre individuals who can have a disproportionately positive impact on how the company performs. That is why the Government want to create the new employment status—to promote enterprise and aspiration.
	Much has been said about the new employee shareholder status. Throughout the scrutiny in this House, I stressed from the beginning that we do not want people coerced into this new type of status. That is why the Government chose to add protections to the status on Report. We added protections for existing employees by creating a new unfair dismissal right and by inserting the right not to be subjected to any detriment if they turn down an employee shareholder contract. Those protections are important. They allow existing employees, if offered an employee shareholder contract, to say no, in the knowledge that the law will protect their decision.
	The Government have always been clear that this measure is voluntary for both individuals and companies to use if it suits their circumstances or business needs. For people on job seeker’s allowance, our priority is to minimise periods of unemployment by helping them to move into work as soon as possible. During proceedings in this House, I listened carefully to concerns raised by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who is in his place today. In response to the concerns he expressed in Committee, I agreed that guidance to decision makers in job centres would make it clear that an individual should not be mandated if there were good reasons for refusing an employee shareholder offer. However, the other place was unconvinced that this employment status would be truly voluntary for jobseeker’s allowance claimants if there was the possibility—however remote—that a claimant could lose their JSA if they turned down an employee shareholder job.
	I want to make it absolutely clear that this new employment status is voluntary. That is why the Government have looked at all this again in the light of comments and speeches by the noble Lords in that debate. We have decided now to remove any remaining ambiguity, which I hope will reassure both this House and the other place. I can tell the House that as a result of considering the policy further we have decided that job centre advisers will not be able to mandate job seekers to apply for employee shareholder positions. The Government will amend the guidance for DWP jobcentre advisers to state explicitly that a jobseeker cannot be mandated to apply for an employee shareholder job. Draft guidance will shortly be placed in the Library.

Andrew Stunell: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and, in particular, for having listened carefully to what was said in this House and in the other place. Will he say a little more about the guidance that will be provided, the timetable and the implementation? Can he give us an assurance that it will be in place before the Bill receives Royal Assent and comes into force?

Michael Fallon: I certainly can. It is not possible, under the procedures of the House, to place the guidance in the Library before I have first explained it to the House, but I will lay the draft guidance in the Library as soon as the transcript of this afternoon’s debate is available.
	Let me be clear about what the draft guidance will mean. It will mean that a jobseeker cannot be compelled to apply for an employee shareholder job, nor can their jobseeker’s allowance be reduced or cut if they turn down an offer of an employee shareholder job or refuse to apply for an employee shareholder job. This explicit
	change to the guidance puts beyond any doubt our intention that no one should be forced into this new status.
	While the benefits of the new status are considerable, it will not suit all companies or individuals—and we have never pretended that it would. It is up to companies and individuals to decide, and we have published guidance for individuals so that they fully understand the implications. That guidance sets out the employment rights associated with these jobs, the risks and rewards of being a shareholder, and other factors they may wish to consider before deciding whether to accept an employee shareholder position.
	We are now, therefore, debating an employment status that is absolutely voluntary. Jobseeker’s allowance claimants will not be penalised if they do not want to apply for employee shareholder roles. Existing employees can turn down the offer of an employee shareholder contract from their current employer without fear of suffering a detriment or being dismissed if they say no.

Julian Smith: Will the Minister confirm that there has been great excitement in many areas of the business community, especially in smaller tech companies, which is a positive reinforcement of the Government’s enterprise policies? We should pay tribute to the Minister for bringing this exciting proposal forward.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have never specified the type of company that is most likely to take up this new status, but obviously younger companies at the beginning of their lives will be able to use this status at a time when they might not be able to pay their staff more than competitor companies, or those already established in the marketplace. They will therefore have an extra edge to offer to those individuals whom they wish to recruit. We have had much interest already from such companies, who see the new status as an exciting way to motivate their new work forces.
	Protections for people do not end there. The Bill confirms that someone can be an employee shareholder only if they are given at least £2,000 worth of shares, and if they are not, the person will not be an employee shareholder and will have all the normal employment rights that are associated with employees.
	Clause 27 also stipulates that a person can only be an employee shareholder if they receive fully paid up shares. This means that the employee shareholder will not be liable for any debts should the company fold. Of course there will be circumstances where an employee shareholder leaves the business. It should be apparent from all that I have said that it is not the Government’s intention that employee shareholders are left with shares that they can sell back to the company only at prices that are unfair or where the buy-back arrangement would leave the employee shareholder at a financial disadvantage if there is no other way of disposing of the shares for value.
	On Report in this House, we introduced an amendment to make a power to allow the Government to set a minimum value for the buy-back of shares if the company and employee shareholder enter into a buy-back agreement. That reserve power will be used, if it is needed, to safeguard employee shareholders in the unlikely event
	that employers behave unscrupulously. By including these protections we are ensuring that individuals understand the implications of employee status and are genuinely free to decide whether to accept it. No one can be pressurised, bullied or coerced into accepting this new status.
	With this announcement of further explicit protection for jobseeker’s allowance claimants, I urge hon. Members to disagree with the other place and reinsert clause 27 into the Bill. The new employment status gives young companies in particular a new option that they can use to attract high-calibre individuals to help grow their business. It is important that we give companies that choice, but it is also important that we give people this opportunity to share in the growth potential of the company they work for. The clause should be part of the Bill.

Chuka Umunna: The Opposition agree with Lords amendment 25, which seeks to remove that part of the Bill that provides for the new status to which the Minister referred.
	Let me start by making an observation. We are debating the Bill the day before many in the country will pause to observe the funeral of the late Baroness Thatcher. Coincidentally, in supporting the Lords amendment to dump the Government’s proposal, we find ourselves in the extraordinary position of being on the same side of the fence as at least four of her former Ministers: Lord Lawson, Lord Forsyth, Lord Deben and Lord King. The reason for this unusual state of affairs is simple. Notwithstanding the admittedly notable concession that the Minister has just given, this is an ill-thought-out and bad idea, and that is why there is strong cross-party opposition. Lord Forsyth put it well in the Lords when he said that the proposal
	“has all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]
	I have to say that I agree with Lord Forsyth on another matter, too. I cannot understand why my opposite number, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who I note is not here today, is going along with this. The Business Secretary engaged in some considerable media in respect of the Beecroft proposals, and said how outrageous they would be. I am, of course, aware that the Minister perhaps has a different view. As Lord Forsyth said, at least Beecroft did not take away entitlement to redundancy payments. This is worse than Beecroft because it does.
	There are a number of reasons why we support the Lords amendment. They were all mentioned in the other place and we wholeheartedly agree with them. First, this is supposed to be a “growth” Bill. No evidence whatever appears to have been adduced by the Government to show how this measure would boost growth. The attitude of businesses, at its most generous, is divided; at its worst, it is overwhelmingly opposed to the measure. In the latest published survey of 700 companies by Barclays Corporate, which was published this week, the proposal appears to find favour with just 25% of respondents. In the Government’s own consultation, only five businesses out of the 200 responses received showed any interest in taking up the scheme.
	Secondly, why connect employee ownership, for which there is widespread support in all parts of the House, with giving up rights to not be unfairly dismissed, redundancy pay, flexible working and time off for training? No coherent answer has been provided by the Government during the Bill’s passage through this House or the House of Lords. In fact, as the Conservative Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, their proposal simply risks giving employee ownership a bad name. After all, if businesses with employee shareholders are looking to carry out a redundancy programme, who are they likely to let go first?

Nick de Bois: The hon. Gentleman gives me a choice of things to argue about, but I will pick up on just one—the survey. He refers to 25% of companies supporting the measure. He is overlooking the fact that it is designed to attract small and medium-sized enterprises—niche companies. It will never enjoy full use by 100% of companies. We should focus on the small businesses that will take advantage of it and become tomorrow’s medium and large enterprises.

Chuka Umunna: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, my understanding is that the survey was conducted among the very businesses to which he refers. As far as I am aware, the Government have not claimed that it is specifically for small businesses. I am happy to be disabused if I have got that wrong.
	Thirdly, the proposal could do immense damage to workplace relations and to the standing of business more generally. I say that from a common sense point of view and as an employment lawyer. What on earth are employees to think if suddenly, out of nowhere, their employer says, “Will you give up all your fundamental rights in this workplace if I give you some shares?” What signal will that send to the employee? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) says from a sedentary position that it is voluntary, but what does that say about one’s relationship with an employer if they are talking about taking away fundamental rights at work? As Justin King, CEO of Sainsbury’s and until recently a member of the Prime Minister’s business advisory group, said, what will the population at large think of businesses that want to trade employment rights for money?
	Fourthly, and this applies more generally to the Government’s moves to destroy the unfair dismissal regime, removing people’s rights to claim unfair dismissal, or a redundancy payment for which compensation is capped, will simply increase the likelihood of employers facing spurious discrimination claims brought against them, for which compensation is unlimited. That was a point made by Baroness Brinton in the other place.
	If an employee is to be offered this special type of employment status, it is important that they should be able to access proper advice on it, particularly in this climate when jobs are few and far between. That point was made by the noble and learned Lord Pannick, who proposed the amendment. The Government have refused to accept that statutory rights should be lost only if the agreement is in writing and the person concerned has received proper independent legal advice on its consequences. That is how it applies in relation to compromise agreements.
	Then there is the issue of the shares themselves and tax. How on earth are these to be valued, particularly given—if the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de
	Bois) is right that the measure is aimed at small companies—that many are unquoted. How will the value of shares be determined without incurring exorbitant fees that would render the whole exercise worthless? According to the Treasury, it will cost the Exchequer £l billion by the end of the forecast period, but the true cost may well be more because, as the Treasury’s December 2012 policy costing document says, it is hard to predict how quickly the increased scope for tax planning will be exploited. That point was picked up by Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that
	“just as government ministers are falling over themselves to condemn”
	tax avoidance
	“that same government is trumpeting a new tax policy that looks like it will foster a whole new avoidance industry.”

Andy Sawford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of tax avoidance. Is there not also an implication for lower paid workers? The Minister has just told us that only the first £2,000 of shares will be exempt from PAYE and national insurance. Does that not mean that workers with, say, £4,000-worth of shares will be hit with a tax bill?

Chuka Umunna: That is absolutely right.
	My final and principal objection to the proposal is this: last November, I put it to the Business Secretary in this House that an employer in his Twickenham constituency would, under these arrangements, be able to make acceptance of job offers conditional on people agreeing to accept employee owner status. He denied that that was the case, yet patently the arrangements allow for it. The risk in the current jobs market of people being pressurised, or feeling under pressure, to take jobs with this type of status will be increased.
	I am pleased about the Minister’s concession today. I raised the point with him on Report, but did not get the kind of assurance or concession that he just gave, and it is good that he gave it. Lord Forsyth said he was astonished that the coalition was even thinking of bringing forward a measure under which people could have their right to jobseeker’s allowance withdrawn if they did not accept a job on this basis. Of course, we will need to study the guidance. We have not seen it yet, and the first we heard of the concession was from the Minister just now. Notwithstanding the concession, however, and for all the reasons I have just given, we continue to support Lords amendment 25.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight a couple of points in favour of the Government’s measures. Judging from the comments of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), obviously the Opposition see this fundamentally as an attack on rights, whereas I see it as a chance to empower individuals and workers to become owners and shareholders and to move from employment to entrepreneurialism, which is something that should be encouraged, not fraught with fear.

Chuka Umunna: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I fail to understand why we have to withdraw people’s rights in order to achieve that.

Nick de Bois: I will come to that. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a history in corporate mergers and acquisitions. When I started my business some time ago, engaging with individuals and offering them a stake in my business was fundamental. It was all about the people I worked with, so I gave away shares to individuals to whom I wanted to give them in order to make them part of the company. I did not have the advantage of what is being offered today, but neither did I have the disadvantage of the market we are in today. Back then, we had not seen the massive increase in employment regulation that came in from Europe under the previous Government.

George Freeman: My hon. Friend, like me, has experience of running small businesses. On the connection between rights and responsibilities in a small company, does he agree that it is fundamentally in start-ups and micro and small businesses, where regulations and red tape hold back progress, that we need to help employees to understand the link between the two? Furthermore, does he agree that that is why the measure has been welcomed by entrepreneurs and senior business people, such as Brent Hoberman, the co-founder of Lastminute.com, and Stuart Rose from M&S? Brent Hoberman said that this imaginative new proposal would be welcomed by British entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial employees alike and that it will encourage workers to be company owners and give fast-growing businesses more flexibility in return.

Nick de Bois: I agree. The point I am trying to make, in as balanced and fair a way as I can under the circumstances, is that, like many people, when I started a business, I did not worry about employment rights and legislation. I tackled it with enthusiasm; I went for it. When I did that, however, in the late ’80s, I did not have to think about the issues that are now facing many people and which are now at the forefront of their minds. That is why I welcome the proposal.
	I want to stick to my main premise, in response to the comments from the hon. Member for Streatham. I do not believe that anyone will lightly give up shares in a business. It is not something that employers do. They give shares up only in return for value, and they get that value from people or by selling them. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that employers will look for value from what they give up. As he will know with his background, however, we also have to bear it in mind that by transferring shares, employers also transfer rights—in contrast to what he said about employment rights—under the Companies Act 2006, which was introduced by the last Government, which enhanced the rights of minority shareholders, such as on matters of prejudice. Employees can even form quasi-partnerships through small minority shareholding. Employers do not lightly give up shares, and when they do, they actually give rights to individuals.

Chuka Umunna: I do not disagree with that.

Nick de Bois: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I would be happy to take up his point.

Chuka Umunna: I do not disagree with many of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but I still fail to understand—he will have to forgive me—why, despite what he says, we
	need to link giving up shares and allowing employees to participate in the way he describes with taking away their fundamental rights at work.

Nick de Bois: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand, as I am sure he does, that the best chance of success for a micro niche business—the people who will benefit from this measure and become tomorrow’s medium businesses—is to be in the most flexible market possible. The supply side has to be flexible, so that employers can afford to take the risk.
	These very modest removals being offered to individuals—they will not be compelled to take them—will be attractive to entrepreneurial, non-risk-averse employees as well as to small, flexible business leaders wanting to start a business.

Andy Sawford: The hon. Gentleman makes the point—it is a legitimate point, but I happen to disagree with it—that these regulations are over-burdensome. One person’s regulation is another person’s basic employment protection. The critical issue, however, is surely the link. His argument might well be worth hearing in this place, but why link the two? That is the critical issue that my constituents do not understand.

Nick de Bois: The biggest step someone takes when they start a small business is employing someone. They cease to be a sole trader working in their own environment; their own boss without responsibility for anyone else and having to meet only their own needs and those of their family. They do not want to take that step chained by too many onerous responsibilities too early on. They seek therefore to strike a deal with their investor or partner, and in return for that flexibility, they do not ask for a single penny in cash to invest in the business. That is a good deal. I would have taken it, had it been on offer to me and had I faced these regulations.

Julian Smith: My hon. Friend is describing very effectively the challenges facing a new small business. Does it not surprise him that the Opposition, particularly the shadow anti-business Secretary of State, are so negative about these supply-side changes?

Nick de Bois: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Streatham, who speaks very eloquently, expresses his support for employee and share ownership, but neither am I surprised that while expressing their support, the Opposition will probably vote against it.
	I want to leave the House with one thought. We all want Britain to succeed. We know, from the statistics that we have traded across the Floor many times, that growth will come from the small and medium-sized enterprises that dominate our economy. The small businesses that I believe will take up this offer—I believe the Government also recognise this—will become the medium enterprises that are so critical to our growth.

David Ward: One of the most significant features of the current recession has been the flexibility in the labour market. In contrast to the ’80s, when there were widespread redundancies, as people were just laid off, we have seen remarkable flexibility and partnership between management and employees, with reduced working hours and pay. It has
	been a great tribute to employees and management. That flexibility has been proven to work. Would not the temptation be, under these proposals, simply to get rid of those staff?

Nick de Bois: No responsible employer would ever relish the prospect of losing the experience that he has invested in to help to develop his business. I have had the pleasure of offering people jobs and of recognising that in some cases, if they have come from unemployment, it can be a life-changing experience for them. However, I have also shared the pain of having to lose people, often through no fault of their own, and I will take no lectures from anyone about how employers relish losing people. It does not happen.

John McDonnell: I want to make four simple, brief points. The first is about share ownership. I tabled amendments when the Bill was debated in this House to try to extend share ownership without connecting that with the loss of rights. It is noticeable that the Government opposed those amendments. As people look to reconstruct the economy and learn the lessons from what has happened in this economic crisis, there is a genuine willingness to look at greater involvement by the work force in the management of companies. Part of that is about extending share ownership to workers. That is a development that we have welcomed in both Houses. The problem is that linking the two things in this way will not act as an incentive for companies to recruit the best; in fact, it will act as a deterrent. If someone faces the choice of going to a company that offers them share ownership without the loss of rights, they will go to that company. If they have the opportunity of going to a company where they will have to sell some of their rights, that will obviously act as a deterrent.

Andy Sawford: I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about workers in that situation, but we should also challenge the account that is being given about how attractive this measure will be to small businesses. I have run a small business. The idea that I would have to work out the tax and other implications of this measure with my work force when I had far more important things to do—building a good, strong work force and running a business—does not stack up to me.

John McDonnell: I was going to make that point. There is an element of complexity in this scheme which will lead to small businesses coming to us in about six months’ time and saying that it is part of the overburdening of regulation.

Mark Lazarowicz: On that point, the assumption has been made that all employees will opt for this status, but in many cases some workers will, while others will refuse, leading to two types of worker in the same business and even more complexity for the very small businesses that we are trying to support.

John McDonnell: That leads on to my second point—I do not want to delay the House. This measure opens up the process of recruitment, retention and promotion to potential victimisation and abuse. Despite the formal protections that the Government assure us will be put in place, the reality is that informal pressures will be put
	on those who wish to be recruited, retained or promoted and these will override the formal protections. Those who have represented people at tribunals and elsewhere will know that it is extremely difficult to prove victimisation and bullying in the work force. Those informal pressures will eventually undermine the credibility of the scheme. My fear is that they will also undermine the credibility of employee share ownership schemes overall.
	Thirdly, I look forward to reading the draft regulations and guidance on protections for jobseeker’s allowance. However, ministerial statements on JSA protections in recent months, as recorded in Hansard, have proved not to be worth the paper they are written on. I refer to assurance after assurance we were given that there were no targets for sanctions in individual jobcentres, when we now have concrete evidence that that is the case. Ministerial assurances on the operation of JSA have so far not proved to be effective. I believe that, at the end of the day, they will prove not to be effective in this case either, because the same informal pressures will be put on jobcentre workers to meet targets for sanctions overall.
	Finally, this measure sets an extremely dangerous precedent. The idea of selling rights could creep into other areas of policy making. For example, will landlords in future be able to offer reduced rents for reductions in security of tenure? Will consumer rights be sold for a reduction in the price of particular goods? That is much more significant than the scheme being proposed in this debate. The idea that rights can be sold in any sphere of government activity sets a dangerous precedent for the future development of rights in this country.

Julian Smith: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that businesses throughout Britain have been laden down with regulation, particularly in employment, and that we have to try constantly to make it easier for them to take people on, particularly at the moment, when we need to do that to create jobs?

John McDonnell: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I disagree. We have heard this argument about the overburdening of regulation year after year, and it is usually used as a justification to give employers the facility to sack people, cut their wages or undermine their employment rights.

Jonathan Edwards: Did not the last intervention let the cat out of the bag? This is essentially about deregulating the labour market via the back door.

John McDonnell: It is, but I was trying to be a bit more subtle about the process of allegation—I appreciate that it does not really suit my style of speaking.
	The point I am trying to make is that, in addition to the process of selling rights, the scheme will not just be unworkable—because its implementation will increase burdensome regulation even more, as my hon. Friends have said—but will act as a deterrent against positive moves towards the development of share ownership and worker engagement in companies. On that basis, I think that, apart from being iniquitous, this measure will be counter-productive. That is why I wholeheartedly agree with the points my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State made in support of the Lords amendment.

Julian Smith: I want to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and talk about the narrative that is developing among Opposition Members. We heard the same bleating for settlement agreements and we have heard the same rhetoric for these proposals. We have heard no tangible idea from the Opposition of how we might make life easier for the thousands of small businesses in North Yorkshire that are creating the bulk of the jobs in my constituency or for the tiny companies across the UK that are struggling with the six regulations a day that Labour piled upon them.
	The proposals that we are discussing are part of a suite of proactive measures to make business easier in this country. Business was laden with regulation, taxation and more and more bureaucracy by the Labour party in power. We—our party and this Government—are doing absolutely the right thing by looking at every opportunity to find ways to make life a bit easier for the hard-working men and women who are waking up in the middle of the night, worried about whether they can pay staff the next day. I commend these proposals and the others that the Government are making across the range of their enterprise policies.

Mark Lazarowicz: I, too, would like to say a few words about this proposal of shares for rights. Of the various types of employment legislation that have come before this House over the years—these provisions are basically employment legislation—there can scarcely have been any with as few friends, on either side of industry. I welcome the fact that the House of Lords did its revising job well and removed the offending clause. I am only sorry that the coalition parties, Conservative and Lib Dem, have chosen to bring it back today, instead of withdrawing quietly and gracefully.
	Given that this provision has so few friends, I suspect that very few employers will want to make use of it. That is because employers who want to extend employee share ownership, of which I am a great supporter—the year after I entered this House I introduced a private Member’s Bill to promote it—will not want to do so in ways that force their employees to give up important rights at work. The type of employer who wants to work with their employees is not likely to be one who at the same time wants to alienate them by taking away their rights, which is what this measure would force such employers to do if they made use of it. Of course, it is hard to see any employees volunteering to adopt such an arrangement either. I suspect that employers who would make use of the measure would be those who are in difficulty.
	I take the point that was made earlier about businesses that want to start up and take on more workers making use of the scheme, but the problem is that, although a new business could behave with the best will in the world in involving its workers in a collective enterprise, it will be when things go wrong and people fall out that those workers will need the protection that is enjoyed by the workers of this country. That is why we should be loth to throw that protection away.
	One objection has involved the suggestion that tax dodges and loopholes could be taken advantage of as a result of the measure being introduced. The Government
	say that they will ensure that that does not happen, but we all know that tax lawyers will find new ways round legislation and that Governments will have to try to catch up with them, no matter what measures are introduced to prevent that from happening. I suspect that, in a couple of years’ time, measures to deal with new loopholes and tax dodges will have to be quietly introduced in a Finance Bill, in the hope that no one notices the embarrassing results of the changes.
	There is a possibility that the scheme will lead to a growth in the number of workers with fewer rights, and to the deregulation of the labour market to which the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) referred. If that were to happen, it would be insidious to see a spread of businesses or employers giving up some of the most important rights to be won by workers and their trade unions over many decades. Incidentally, a different Liberal party was proud to speak up for those rights in the past, but in its current guise it seems happy to see them taken away.
	It is also foreseeable that businesses making use of the scheme might eventually have to implement redundancies and lay-offs in which people lost their jobs. It is precisely at such times that the potential for legal challenges would arise. I do not have time today to go into all the possibilities, but it does not require much imagination to understand the prospect of all sorts of legal challenges—

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in hearing a few seconds of reply. He is not obliged to be interested, but if he is, he will need to resume his seat.

Mark Lazarowicz: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall end by saying that I hope the House will not support the Government’s proposals today.

Michael Fallon: With the leave of the House, I should like briefly to respond. I am afraid that we have had a fairly predictable debate today. We have heard the voices of the employment lawyers on the Opposition Benches, and the voices of entrepreneurs on this side of the House. I have made it absolutely clear that the proposed status will be entirely voluntary and optional, and I have introduced a further change today to make it absolutely clear that those who are on jobseeker’s allowance will be fully protected. Nobody has to take up this status. Nobody can be harassed or bullied into taking it up, but there are plenty of businesses that are ready and willing to do so.
	I should like to finish by citing Miss Becky McKinlay, who said that she would have welcomed such a scheme when she set up her company six years ago, because she could not afford to outbid her peers on wages. Her company is called Ambition, and we should be ambitious—
	Forty-five minutes having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Lords amendment, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 277, Noes 239.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	After Clause 4

Development orders: development within the curtilage of a dwelling house

Eric Pickles: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 1 to 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 40.

Eric Pickles: I agree with amendments 1 to 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 40, but I ask the House to support the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 7.
	I would like to thank the noble Lords for their well-informed debates since this Bill passed to the other place just before Christmas. Those debates brought about a number of positive changes, and we are happy to support a significant number of them. I recognise the constructive proposals put forward in particular by Baronesses Byford and Parminter and by Lords Jenkin of Roding, Tope, Shipley and Greaves on the Government Benches; by Lord Best and the Earl of Lytton from the Cross Benches; and, indeed, by Lord Berkeley on the Opposition Benches.
	The amendments to clause 1 take into account the very poor performance of a small number of authorities in failing to meet statutory deadlines. They confirm that designation can be made only on the basis of inadequate performance in the determination of major applications and that the criteria of those designations must be laid before both Houses of Parliament before coming into force.
	On report in this House, in response to arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) as well as by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), the Government made a commitment to amendment 12 to exempt rural exception sites from the provisions of clause 6 on affordable housing. In addition, we have always said that we intend clause 6 to be a temporary measure to unblock existing stalled housing developments, and we were happy to introduce an amendment to ensure that the sun would set on it on 30 April 2016.
	We have made clear that the Planning Inspectorate’s assessment of the viability of a particular scheme will be independent, and that any evidence on which inspectors rely in their discussions will be made public. We also support the amendments that will guarantee consistency with existing mayoral planning powers relating to applications that are of strategic importance in London.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for announcing an important measure that will deal with the mischief of many years during which people were unable to know what arguments developers were advancing for the delivery of less than the locally affordable housing limits. It will allow us to hold to account, publicly, developers as well as local authorities.

Eric Pickles: I agree. It will ensure that important information is provided where it should be provided, within the community.
	Lords amendment 15, which amends clause 8, constitutes a direct response to points made with passion and persistence by Lady Parminter, and also by the English National Park Authorities Association, about the precise drafting of our proposal to accelerate the roll-out of superfast broadband coverage. The amendment will ensure that we retain important safeguards that will continue to protect our national parks and other protected areas.
	I hope that the House will support Lords amendment 8, which will simplify the process of making local development orders; Lords amendment 16, which will reduce the
	period of grace for the registration of town and village greens from two years to one; Lords amendment 23, which will remove ambiguity from development consent orders; and Lords amendment 24, which will enable the Mayor of London to delegate his planning responsibilities.
	Let me now deal with the important issue of permitted development rights for home owners. The proposal in question was not part of the Bill as introduced in the House of Commons. I overheard one of my right hon. Friends expressing a desire to vote against it and claiming to have voted against it persistently during all the Bill’s stages in the Commons, but I must point out that this is the first occasion on which it has been before us. It stems from an amendment tabled by Lords True, Tope and Lytton, and I know that it has engaged the interest of many Members of the House of Commons as well. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the way in which the planning system strikes a balance between the rights of home owners to improve their homes and the right of the state to specify the improvements that they are allowed to make.
	Let me now quote, with considerable approval, from a document which states:
	“No one today would assert that property rights should be unrestricted but…those restrictions must always be justified and remain as limited as possible… many planners who have grown up with the view that the property owner is only one stakeholder among others. There are too many who act as if they believe that most people cannot be trusted to make decisions themselves without the superior advice and judgement of professionals. Some councillors, too long on planning committees, react to a restatement of the inherent rights of property by fearing loss of control! It is that word which is the key.
	Too much planning has become development control… the time and trouble that has been spent on dealing with planning applications for extensions and additions, porches and garages…cannot be seriously said to have been cost-effective.”
	Those are the magnificent words of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), together with those of John Gummer, in the wonderful Quality of Life policy group report, published in 2007.

Stewart Jackson: I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that the local government family is like the curate’s egg: good in parts, but bad as well. Does he agree, however, that the issues that he has raised would have been ventilated much more effectively had the consultation period been longer—along with the Cabinet Office guidelines—and had the Department itself arrived at a settled consensus in response after 16 weeks? Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Eric Pickles: I do not know about the curate’s egg, but I have always regarded local government as an omelette of happiness and consensus. I hope that by the time I sit down, I shall have spun together a dish that the hon. Gentleman can happily tuck into.

Paul Burstow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Pickles: I will, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter of omelettes.

Paul Burstow: Can the Secretary of State explain why, even at this stage, it was not possible to provide an executive summary of the findings from the consultation? Why must the House wait until May to find out whether people are in favour of the proposal or against it?

Eric Pickles: Obviously we will provide the information when the regulations are laid. That is normal Government procedure.
	Having poured praise on my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park—

Zac Goldsmith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Pickles: I must!

Zac Goldsmith: I stand by the words that my right hon. Friend quoted so eloquently earlier. There are certainly ways in which we could simplify the planning system; I do not think anyone disputes that. However, given that 90% of applications are already successful, surely removing people’s right to object will simply guarantee that the remaining 10%—the most contentious, un-neighbourly, antisocial developments—proceed as well, causing unnecessary conflict between neighbours.

Eric Pickles: I think that it would be best for my hon. Friend to wait until the omelette has started to settle. He may care to cross-examine me further then.

Tim Loughton: I do not know about omelettes, but the Secretary of State is making a very soft-boiled case for supporting the Government, and I am really trying hard. I do not know about him, but I hear complaints from many of my constituents, at my surgeries or through local councillors, that their neighbours have extended the remit of their planning permissions in terms of height, length or type. How many more complaints does he think will be made to us when planning permission is no longer required for a development that a neighbour would regard as completely unacceptable and antisocial?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We must have shorter interventions.

Eric Pickles: When I became Member of Parliament for Brentford and Ongar, my predecessor gave me a single file and two pieces of advice. The first was that when the sun rose I should always be found in my own bed, and the second was “Never, in any circumstances, become involved in planning.” Since then, I have been made a Planning Minister. My advice to my hon. Friend is not to become too heavily involved in disputes between neighbours.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eric Pickles: If hon. Members will let me make a little progress, they will be able to hear what I am suggesting.
	I believe that there is broad agreement on the need for greater flexibilities and freedoms for home owners. It is merely a question of detail, and that detail is contained in planning regulations—secondary legislation—which both Houses will be able to consider in due course, separately from the Bill. However, the Government cannot support Lords amendment 7, which seeks to use the sledgehammer of primary legislation to change the details of planning regulations. The amendment would introduce a wholly new principle allowing local planning authorities to view national householder permitted development rights as completely optional, which would constitute a significant extension of state power over
	private property rights. It is also unnecessary, because a mechanism for responding to exceptional concerns in particular areas already exists.
	In 2008, the previous Government extended permitted development rights for home owners—from roof extensions to rear extensions. That did not result in neighbourhood wars; nor did it mean the end of local planning. We believe there is a case for further sensible, practical reforms. In those changes, article 4 powers were reformed, and they were amended in 2010 to give greater local discretion.
	We have always recognised that there will be some areas where national permitted development rights will sit less comfortably and that local authorities should be able to carve out an exemption following appropriate consultation. They can do so by making an article 4 direction. Over 270 directions have been made since 2010.
	The Local Government Association has suggested that article 4 directions are not enough, yet there is no real evidence base to suggest that. Councils have powers to make directions to withdraw householder permitted development rights with immediate effect. Immediate directions must then be confirmed by the council following local consultation within 12 months.
	A second issue raised is that the council must pay compensation costs if less than 12 months notice is given. Compensation would be payable only where a planning application is subsequently refused or conditions are imposed, and a claim for compensation is made relating to householders’ abortive expenditure or other loss. In this case, such loss is likely to be minimal.
	Indeed, more broadly, the LGA has not provided evidence on the extent to which councils have been forced to pay out any compensation under the current article 4 regime. I regret that. After an extensive search through correspondence, we can find no example of a local authority reporting to the Department that it has been forced to pay compensation.
	The third issue raised by the LGA is that article 4 directions have to be used across an entire use-class. That is not relevant to the matters we are discussing today, which are to do with householder permitted development rights. Importantly, article 4 directions have been made, and can continue to be made, in respect of individual elements within the householder permitted development rights. This is not a blunt tool and can be tuned to local circumstances.
	I have not intervened in any article 4 direction since May 2010. We have committed to working with the LGA to update our article 4 guidance as part of Lord Taylor’s review, to ensure that the process is as clear and straightforward as possible.

Bob Blackman: Article 4 directives are generally used for enforcing restrictions in conservation areas, which is why they are quite restrictive, but this proposal would constitute a major extension of their use. How does my right hon. Friend propose that local authorities would recover the costs associated with that? As I understand it, they are not at present permitted to charge for those costs.

Eric Pickles: This is a normal administrative process. I will check with my ministerial colleagues, but I believe a London borough—Barking, I think—is currently putting out a consultation with regard to article 4 and betting shops in the area.
	There is a misunderstanding here. Where this measure relates to a sole property, we would expect notice to be served, but where it is served generally to an area, the normal process by which we inform the public about planning applications, decisions and appeals would apply.

Bob Neill: I agree that to permit a local authority to opt out entirely from permitted development measures would be draconian, but does my right hon. Friend accept that there are underlying concerns that article 4 directions may not operate as well in practice as in theory? Is he therefore prepared to consider what further steps might be taken by his Department and local authorities to refine the way in which the article 4 system works?

Eric Pickles: Absolutely, and that is why we are looking towards Lord Taylor’s advice in respect of tweaking the article 4 process. It has undergone a number of changes. It changed under the last Government in 2008, and we made a change in 2010, so article 4 is not set in concrete—it is not buried under a back patio.

John Hemming: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one reason why no compensation has been paid under article 4 is that local authorities are frightened to issue article 4 directives under which they may have to pay compensation?

Eric Pickles: I have enjoyed campaigning with the hon. Gentleman on other issues, but I have to say he is being highly speculative here, as there is no real evidence of such a self-denying ordinance by local authorities.

Charles Walker: rose—

Eric Pickles: I am about to use honeyed terms to try to placate my colleagues who have concerns, but before I get to that dramatic moment, I will give way again.

Charles Walker: I do not want to keep my right hon. Friend from reaching that dramatic moment because I should observe that my Whip said I was going to hear honeyed words and an outbreak of common sense from those on the Front Bench. Some might uncharitably call that a Government climbdown, but I would describe it as listening to the concerns of Back Benchers.

Eric Pickles: rose—

Clive Betts: rose—

Eric Pickles: And before the honeyed words arrive, I can think of nobody more appropriate to give way to than the emollient Chairman of the Select Committee.

Clive Betts: I am still struggling with understanding why the Secretary of State is resisting amendment 7 and instead arguing in favour of article 4. He says the amendment’s scope is far too wide, but that article 4 is there to be used instead. Are there therefore certain circumstances in which authorities may want to opt out
	of permitted development rights under amendment 7, but would not be able to use article 4? If so, what are those circumstances?

Eric Pickles: Well, one might be concerned that this might be misrepresented as a money-raising exercise—a nice little earner—for local authorities, and that it would be in their financial interests for us to accept amendment 7. It is important that the British public—or the English public in this case—have confidence in the planning system.

John Redwood: I would like a little more information. Will the Secretary of State give us his forecast of how many extra extensions we would get in the first year under his proposal, and how many might be lost with the amendment?

Eric Pickles: My right hon. Friend recognises that this represents a boost to industry. [Interruption.] I am sorry if the idea of helping local builders and do-it-yourselfers and people who earn their own living is regarded as unimportant.

Lyn Brown: rose—

Eric Pickles: I feel that, somehow, I am returning to confrontational type, and I must avoid that, so let me say the honeyed words, and then I will consider giving way to the hon. Lady.
	Notwithstanding my comments on this amendment, I appreciate that there is the separate issue of the detail of the Government’s planned reforms to permitted development rights. I am grieved and distressed that Lords and Members—on both sides of the House—who I would normally look to for advice, guidance and support on planning issues have concerns, so we have listened to them. The Planning Minister and my other ministerial colleague, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), have met colleagues from this House to hear their views, and I believe that even at this late hour we can establish a broad consensus on these practical reforms. We will listen carefully to the debate this afternoon—this is, of course, the first opportunity the House has had to debate the matter—reflect on all the points raised and consider in detail the representations made in the consultation on the secondary legislation.
	I can announce today that in the spirit of consensus we will introduce a revised approach to the contentious question of permitted development rights for home extensions when the Bill returns to the Lords. If we cannot persuade the other House, the issue will return to the Commons next week so that hon. Members can debate and vote further. Given the discussions I have had with colleagues who have concerns, I believe that the problem is eminently bridgeable. I would like the opportunity to build that bridge.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I think that most of us have listened carefully. May I suggest that the ideas put to the other House might, when they come back to this House, be more acceptable than the proposal in front of us?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend has, in his succinct way, put the case better than I have.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate the seriousness with which the Secretary of State has considered the representations made by Back Benchers to him and his Planning Minister, which is shown by the fact that he is dealing with this group of amendments himself. I am grateful to him for that. However, will he forgive me if I am sceptical and want to wait to see his proposals? This question has caused a great deal of grief to my district council, Chiltern district council, and to many councils across the country and I am afraid that we will not believe what he says at that Dispatch Box until we see the proposals in black and white.

Eric Pickles: Of course, I am cut to the quick by my right hon. Friend’s remarks. She does not need to rely on my persuasion, however, because no matter what happens the issue will come back to this House for consideration.

Zac Goldsmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and welcome his decision to rethink the policy, but given that Lord True’s amendment is modest, it is hard to know what further compromise the Government might accept. Will the Secretary of State provide greater clarity about what he is proposing before we are asked to vote?

Eric Pickles: Considering that I quoted a good page and a half from an excellent document that is, I hope, still in print, I am not entirely sure that the Dispatch Box is the right forum from which to attempt to negotiate the consensus I seek. My hon. Friend has absolutely nothing to lose. He will be involved in the discussions and we will seek to try to reach a sensible compromise. If he does not like it, he can go into the other Lobby and say that he was right all along.

Anne McIntosh: I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this as a helpful intervention. When I was shadow floods Minister, I, in my humble capacity, and the environment, food and rural affairs team worked very closely with the local planning shadow team. We were very concerned about the flood implications of tarmacking over our drives and building extra conservatories. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance today that that important aspect of the question has been considered?

Eric Pickles: I well remember wandering through the flooding in my hon. Friend’s constituency, complete with wellington boots, and I know that she takes an enormous interest in such matters. It is important to understand that these changes will in no way affect building regulations or the necessity to ensure flood prevention and to take sensible precautions.

Andrew Bingham: I appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State has come to the Chamber today and said that he is prepared to listen, as many of us have concerns. Like other Members, I want to know what is in his mind and what he is thinking. At this stage, I merely urge him to pick up on an adage used elsewhere: it is not all about size.

Eric Pickles: I am always glad to hear that it is not all about size; that is a comfort to me.

Charles Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for being most generous in giving way. In deciding what will happen next week, will he discuss his position and that of others with colleagues on the Back Benches so that we can reach consensus on what might be acceptable?

Eric Pickles: Absolutely. My hon. Friend the Planning Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister—[Interruption.] The Minister from Bath, whose responsibilities are numerous. My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend have already entered into extensive discussions and I believe, based on those discussions, that the problem is bridgeable.

Peter Luff: I think that the Secretary of State will recognise that the level of attendance in the House today for the consideration of Lords amendments shows how seriously many of us take the matter. To return to his earlier metaphor, he is a good egg and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. He must not scramble the process, however, and I hope that he will return with substantive changes. Tinkering is not enough; we believe that the policy is seriously flawed.

Eric Pickles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not coddling me.

Lyn Brown: I am genuinely grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but had I heard his words from a Minister on my own side when I sat on the Government Benches, I would have thought that they were wriggle words—I would not have been persuaded. Will his ideas about what might be changed address concerns in my constituency about beds in sheds?

Eric Pickles: I cannot imagine any circumstances in which permitted development rights would allow beds in sheds. I politely remind the hon. Lady that this Government took decisive action on beds in sheds after years of neglect from Labour.

Kevan Jones: I am really enjoying the Secretary of State’s performance this afternoon. I must say that the thought of consensus and the right hon. Gentleman does not spring to mind on many occasions. Will he put us, and particularly his Back Benchers, out of our misery and suggest what the great consensual position might be next week?

Eric Pickles: The solutions are available and my Back Benchers have come up with a number of ideas. It would be wholly wrong of me not to place on record my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his sterling work in exposing the waste under the previous Labour Government through a series of questions. We on this side are very grateful for all he has done and I certainly intend to put him up for a campaigning award.

Anne Main: I came to the Chamber in the hope that the Secretary of State would give me some assurances that something dramatic would happen. I am not happy, however, about it being debated behind the scenes and not on the Floor of the House. The concerns of Members on both sides of the House are genuine and we feel these pressures intensely when we talk to our local councils.

Eric Pickles: As consensus goes, this is pretty damn dramatic. It is about as dramatic as consensus gets. I will certainly do my best to make my hon. Friend—and, more importantly, her constituents—happy and contented.

Nadine Dorries: I take on board the Secretary of State’s point that the LGA has not provided him with sufficient evidence, but will he accept as evidence the fact that many of us have been approached by our councils and their leaders, who have asked us to come along and support the amendment? The change is not one that councils want or one that they think that they can afford.

Eric Pickles: It has been noticeable that discussion in the Chamber is one-sided today. There is concern on the Government Benches and either complete indifference or partisan points from those on the Opposition Benches.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eric Pickles: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), but then I think that that must be it as others need to speak.

Annette Brooke: I, too, would like more details about the direction of change. As most councils have extensive delegation powers, 90% of extensions go through smoothly. Why is this such a huge measure for those that need more detailed consideration for the sake of the neighbours and the whole neighbourhood?

Eric Pickles: I could not have put it better myself. I believe we can move together, arrive at a broad consensus and ensure that homeowners can see developments take place and that planning officers are not bogged down with unnecessary considerations. I welcome the important scrutiny of the Bill in the other place and the majority of the amendments proposed. In the light of the new commitment to reflect, I hope I have convinced the House that amendment 7 is unnecessary and that it should therefore not be accepted today.

Hilary Benn: I welcome the Government’s decision to accept all but one of the amendments that were passed in the other place, in particular the sunset clause on section 106, the Secretary of State’s announcement today on the assessment of viability, the fact that at least some criteria will now be published for identifying so-called failing planning authorities, and the right hon. Gentleman’s agreement that when it comes to broadband development, the Secretary of State should have regard to the environment and the conservation of the natural beauty of our countryside.
	That leaves the House with the one amendment on permitted development rights, and the very large attendance here today demonstrates the extent of concern. I listened extremely carefully to what the Secretary of State said. There have been many references to eggs in the course of the debate so far. One Member said that the Secretary of State was a good egg, but this particular egg is completely empty when it comes to the detailed proposal that he has in mind. What he said was not persuasive, not just to those on the Opposition Benches but I suspect to those on the Government Back Benches.
	This is, in essence, a debate about how decisions should be taken on extensions to residential properties. It is a debate about, first, the process, and secondly, who should take those decisions. At the heart of the debate is a simple question: is it sensible for the Government to impose the change in permitted development rights on every single local planning authority in England? That is what we are debating. The Secretary of State tries to suggest that the proposal is about empowering people, but what he is trying to do is to take away the rights of neighbours to object to developments that they think will affect their rights and their amenity. That is why there is so much concern.
	I think it is a centralist proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced. I do not think that it will give the boost to the economy that is being claimed, because I do not think the back gardens of England should be made the victims of the failure of the Government’s economic policy.

Anne Main: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider his phraseology? The issue is not necessarily the back gardens of England, but the curtilages of England, which could be a different point entirely.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. I was going to raise it in a moment, but I shall raise it now. The Planning Minister told the Select Committee that the development would be limited to 50% of the garden, but the consultation document does not say that. It says 50% of the curtilage of the house. As the Royal Town Planning Institute has pointed out, the two are self-evidently not the same. I would happily give way at this moment to the Secretary of State if he could clarify a simple question. Is it 50% of the garden or 50% of the curtilage?

Bob Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Hilary Benn: Gladly, but the House will have noticed that the Secretary of State, who is responsible for this, cannot answer or is unwilling to answer a very simple question in the House today.

Bob Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this very simple question? Given his new-found concern for back gardens, will he explain why his Government persisted in regarding back gardens as brownfield development, resisted attempts to reclassify them and permitted more building on back gardens, which was reversed by this Government?

Hilary Benn: I make no apology for having a brownfield-first policy when we were in government. One of the reasons why more and more development is going to be seen on greenfield sites is that in revising the national planning policy framework, the Government have weakened the extremely sensible brownfield-first policy.
	There was a hurried consultation on permitted development rights. Reference has already been made to the fact that although the consultation closed on 24 December last, anyone who looked this morning on the Communities and Local Government website to remind themselves of what the Government’s response was, given the great hoo-hah that there has been and the many views expressed, would have found this simple statement:
	“We are analysing your responses. Visit this page again soon to download the outcome to this public feedback.”
	I find it extraordinary. Given the extent of the concern and the discussions that have been taking place at the last minute with colleagues on the Government Benches who are immensely concerned about the matter, how is it that all these months after the closing date for the consultation, the Government have not even been able to publish what people said and to respond to it?
	I am not surprised that the Government have not been keen to do that because of the extent of the concern expressed. Two arguments have been made. The first was that the Government’s proposal would boost economic recovery. That view is not shared by those who should know. When the Planning Minister was asked by the BBC what would be the economic impact of the measure, he replied, “I don’t know.” The truth is that nobody knows. The Select Committee was not persuaded by the economic argument. It said that the case that the Government had put was
	“so tentative, broad-brush and qualified as to provide little assurance that the financial benefits suggested will be achieved.”
	Even Anglian Home Improvements, who know a lot about building conservatories, said that the proposals would on their own
	“achieve little if anything in terms of securing economic growth”.
	If the Government wanted to boost the construction sector and the building of conservatories, they could do a lot worse than to reduce the rate of VAT on home improvements to 5%, as the National Federation of Builders has suggested.
	The second argument and the substantive one is that it should be made much easier for people to be able to extend their homes. The Secretary of State knows, as we have heard in this debate, that about 90% of those planning applications for extensions beyond the existing permitted development rights are approved. That shows that the planning system is working to allow these extensions, but what it also shows is that the planning system works to weed out the 10% of applications that are not acceptable. The right hon. Gentleman wants those 10% to be able to go ahead, come what may. That is the consequence of what he is proposing.

Bob Blackman: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a key point in the debate—the 13% of applications that are currently not approved. Can we be clear about the Labour party’s policy on permitted development? Is it in favour of a free-for-all or in favour of vast restrictions?

Hilary Benn: I shall be very clear. The reason I shall be going through the Lobby to vote against the Secretary of State’s motion today is that I believe that decision should be taken by local communities and local authorities, as the other place suggested. Instead of being decided from the centre, it should be decided locally.
	That is the reason why, for example, Richmond council called them “very foolish proposals”, and why the leader of Sutton council said that the Government’s proposals were
	“a recipe for disaster....If this is allowed to happen it will set neighbour against neighbour and split communities”.
	It is why the leader of Bromley council spoke about
	“an uncontrolled planning free for all, causing major problems for future generations”
	which would
	“undermine the rights of our residents to voice their views on what will affect their immediate surroundings”.
	And it is why Councillor Mike Jones, who leads on the Local Government Association in this field, said:
	“All this policy will do is give a green light to the unsightly and out-of-place small scale developments which have already been turned down because of legitimate local reasons.”
	The right hon. Gentleman made an argument about article 4. It is an argument that the Planning Minister made when he appeared before the Select Committee back in October, although as we have heard, article 4 is designed to deal with particular problems in particular places. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not find any examples of people who had been able to claim compensation against their councils, although a fair point was made that councils are reluctant to find themselves in that position. It was rather strange, therefore, that back in September the Secretary of State went to great pains to say about councils that do use article 4:
	“If they do that, then a member of the public can seek damages against them.”
	That sort of suggests that he was saying, “Well, if you don’t like what your council is doing by using article 4, you can always try to get some compensation.”
	Given the slight contradiction there appears to be, even on the Front Bench, between the Secretary of State and the Planning Minister, will the Secretary of State clarify when he winds up whether he would give consent in every case to applications from local authorities to use an article 4 direction to cover their whole area and exempt themselves from the permitted development rights? If he says no, it is not a remedy. If he says yes, he is making the other House’s case for it, because what it has proposed is a much simpler way of achieving the same effect: namely, giving the local authority the right to opt out of the permitted development right proposal in respect of residential dwellings.
	I will keep my remarks brief, because many Members wish to contribute. I simply say to the Secretary of State that it is quite clear that his proposals have not been thought through. We know that they will not achieve the boost to the economy he suggested they would. They have engendered an enormous amount of concern and opposition from Members of the House, organisations, local authorities and others.
	I listened extremely carefully to what the Secretary of State chose to describe as his “honeyed” words. To be honest, I was expecting something much more significant. In truth, there was nothing there. He has had all this time, since the consultation closed, and he has been well aware for months of the concern that the proposals have created among many of his right hon. and hon. Friends. With great respect, it is not good enough for him to come along today and say, “Okay, I get the message. Honestly, I am sure that we can work this out. Believe me.”
	We have a simple choice today: we have the Lords amendment, which simply states that if a local council does not want to do this, it does not have to; and we have whatever might appear in the other place next
	week—I cannot say what that is, and neither can any other Member, because the Secretary of State has not shared with us his thinking on that. On that basis, I urge all Members to accept what the other place has proposed and solve the matter once and for all by rejecting the Secretary of State’s motion and giving local councils the power to take these decisions for themselves, because that would be the localist thing to do.

Bob Neill: As a former sous-chef in the Department, I have no doubt that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says he wishes to achieve a workable and viable compromise, he means it. I trust him and believe him because I know him, and I hope all my hon. Friends think the same.
	Very little weight can be attached to the Opposition’s cynical approach. Having spent nearly two and a half years as a ministerial sous-chef stripping away the centralised control that the Labour party placed upon planners in this country and the constraints it placed on local authorities, I think that it ill behoves Labour Members to talk the language of localism.

Lyn Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Bob Neill: I will make some progress before giving way.
	It is well known that throughout the history of planning legislation in this country there has been a concept of permitted development. That is not new; it goes back to 1947. It has always been accepted that it is legitimate, for reasons of public policy, from time to time to adjust the criteria that determine what constitutes permitted development, and that has always been done at national level. The difficulty with the Lords amendment is that it would allow a complete opting-out of any adjustment to national policy at a local level, and that seems to me to be nothing other than a needlessly blunt instrument. However, I accept that there is an issue about the operation of article 4 in practice. I know that from my own dealings with local authorities and from my own experience as both a Minister and a councillor.

Lyn Brown: The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I was going to ask him whether he thought that the policy was consistent with the Government’s localism agenda. I think he would agree with me that it is not. Does he agree with me that Newham council has an issue with developments on back gardens that are used as dwellings but are uninhabitable, unsanitary and completely against cohesive communities?

Bob Neill: There is a real issue in Newham and other parts of the country about developments in back gardens. When I was in the Department, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), then the Housing Minister, who did more to tackle the issue than any Minister before him, and that is now being carried on by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles). This Government are helping to deal with the issue the hon. Lady raises on behalf of her constituents.
	I accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with his experience of the matter, understands that we need to find an article 4 system that actually works, rather than the well-intentioned but draconian outcome proposed by their lordships. Rightly or wrongly,
	concerns have been raised about how article 4 actually operates on the ground. That relates in part to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) made about a degree of risk averseness among local government officers in recommending them to their members.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend not agree with me, however, that it would have been easier to persuade the House of the merits of these proposals if the indicative costs of, say, the enforcement action likely under the new regime, and indeed the indicative economic benefit referred to by the Secretary of State, had been made more explicit in the course of the debate?

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I accept the basis on which he does so. Equally, however, there is no doubt a great deal set out in the consultation. I very much hope that the consultation contains some constructive proposals on how we might make an article 4 system work more effectively in practice. I understand his point, but the details are particularly indicative and speculative in these cases because, in general, the Government have rightly taken a policy of not seeking to intervene in local authority applications for article 4 directions, which is a genuinely localist stance. We have in fact made the position more localist by requiring only notification of the article 4 direction, rather than approval by the Secretary of State—a general move back towards localism, which the previous Government never did. That is why I think that, rather than thinking about the indicative costs, we should look at finding a constructive means whereby local authorities have the confidence to use article 4 directions, knowing that they will work and will not create a disproportionate burden.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend has vast experience in local government and in planning law. Does he agree that one of the reasons for the impetus behind the campaign to allow local authorities to opt out is the Government’s proposal to double the amount of permitted development that will be allowed? In some parts of the country it will work, but in others it will not. That is the concern of local authorities, MPs and councillors

Bob Neill: I understand my hon. Friend’s genuine concerns—I do not doubt the good faith with which they are raised—but, equally, I hope he accepts that my problem with the Lords amendment is that it would import a blanket approach to something that has always been adjusted nationally, although however much it should or should not be is a matter for debate. If we are going to change that, we ought to give it rather more consideration.
	My other difficulty with the Lords amendment is that it would make a very significant shift in policy by adopting that blanket opt-out approach, without any consideration of that in the consultation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s stance will enable that to take place.

Clive Betts: The Select Committee looked at the Government’s proposals and we concluded that the case for the change to permitted development rights for domestic extensions has not been made. The Government’s impact assessment estimates costs of between £5 million
	and £100 million, which shows the lack of clarity in their thinking. The impact assessment made no estimate of the social and environmental impacts. Reference has been made to the 90% of proposals that currently gain planning permission, but of those some are changed because of representations on the consultation arrangements that are made as part of the planning consideration. We should be concerned not only about the 10% that are turned down but would be accepted under permitted development rights, but those that are never submitted for planning permission because they are so awful that people know they would be turned down if they were submitted.
	On localist issues, what can be more local than an extension to a house? This has no national significance. The Planning Minister has accepted that it will not have any significant impact on economic growth in the country as a whole—it is a local matter. In that case, why not accept amendment 7? The Secretary of State has argued for the use of article 4 instead. Article 4 is time consuming, cumbersome, subject to challenge and potentially costly. It is really meant to be used as an exception rather than as a general rule. The Secretary of State must clarify whether article 4 will achieve the same effect for local authorities as amendment 7, and, if not, what is the difference between them. If the same effect can be achieved under article 4 as under amendment 7, then why not retain amendment 7?

Andrew Bingham: I am not keen on this idea, and I have said so from an early stage, because there would be long-term consequences from what is perceived as a short-term gain. We have heard about monstrous carbuncles; I think that we could end up with a lot of small warts on properties. My constituency of High Peak is a hilly area. A small extension to a property next door but one on a steep hill can have an overbearing effect on the neighbours. To do this without planning permission would be wrong for my constituency and wrong in general. The Lords amendment would give this power to local councils. I do not know what my local council would do with it, although I have a good idea; it may go with it or it may not. The amendment is very sensible. It would devolve the power to our local authorities—our locally elected members—to let them make the decision on whether they want to follow this approach. That is why I will support the Lords amendment and not, I am afraid, its rejection.

Annette Brooke: I, too, welcome the work done in the other place. We have some very sensible amendments and I am pleased that the Government have accepted them.
	I have in my hand the representation that I submitted on 24 December, obviously having worked right up until Christmas. Nothing has really changed in the views that I expressed on behalf of colleagues at that time, when we rehearsed the arguments over and again. However, I would like to pick up on the long term effects mentioned by the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). The problem is not just that one extension might be a great eyesore and affect neighbours for a long period, but that even when the temporary measure had ended it would be very difficult to refuse an application from houses nearby, so a whole neighbourhood could be affected over time.
	I would like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say a little more about how he will tackle the issues that we have before us, on which we have had a consultation. They are not satisfactory as they are, and we are in the dark about where we might go next.

Zac Goldsmith: Many colleagues are minded to support the amendment but would like to support the Government. For my part, I would need to hear the Secretary of State say, first, that whatever amendment the Government introduce in the Lords will reflect absolutely the spirit of this amendment; secondly, that we will have time in this Chamber to debate that amendment; and, thirdly, that he is laying out a clear timetable. Without those assurances, I personally, regretfully, will be unable to support the Government and will see myself marching through the contrary Lobby.

Stewart Jackson: In this of all weeks, it pains me to be considering voting for the amendment and against the Government, but this policy has not been well thought out. When the Planning Minister came to speak at the meeting yesterday, he was very gracious but unable to demonstrate the economic benefits. We know that the Secretary of State is between Scylla and Charybdis on this because it is a Treasury-driven issue, and he has played a difficult wicket very well. We have seldom had a situation where so many Conservative councils and other bodies have united to say that this is very bad legislation. It offends against the principle of localism. It is also a credibility issue for this House. It is not absolutely the best thing in the world to be told the Government’s position an hour ago by The Daily Telegraph while the Secretary of State assures us in this House that he is thinking about clarifying the situation.
	I am not convinced that densely populated urban areas such as mine will not suffer from the problems raised by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), such as beds in sheds. We need to take this issue away to demonstrate the costs of enforcement actions in the new regime and the economic benefits. I look to the Secretary of State to reassure the House, but at the moment I am minded, very regretfully, to support the amendment.

Anne Main: Regrettably, the only reason this proposal would have any economic benefit is that the scale of such developments would be so large that people would scramble to go and get the thing built before anybody could object to it. I am very unhappy about it. In 2005 we had the high hedges legislation, whereby anything over 2 metres was considered to be un-neighbourly, and now we are hearing proposals for something that is 4 metres high by 8 metres. This will potentially be extremely divisive in communities. I really feel that the Secretary of State could have offered us a little more today, although I know that he is in a very difficult place in this regard. I believe that in areas such as St Albans, particularly when we have no definitions of curtilage or gardens, this will be a very divisive and ruinous issue.

Eric Pickles: I think that I can offer the reassurances that colleagues are seeking. It is not a question of simply taking my word for it, regarding me as being a
	good egg, or whatever. The simple truth is that this proposal has got to come back here to be discussed and voted on. I need the help and assistance of colleagues to ensure that the proposal is voted down. If we do not vote it down, we cannot arrive at a consensus. This would be a wholly unusual and strange process. It would take a sledgehammer to planning system, and that is wholly wrong. I believe that we can give the assurances that my hon. Friends seek, but we need some time to discuss this with right hon. and hon. Members, and then, whatever the outcome, it will come back here on 23 April; that is certain. I ask my hon. Friends to look most carefully at this issue, to support the Government, and, by so doing, to support the rights of property owners and local authorities.

Bob Blackman: There are two key concerns here: first, the rights of local authorities; and secondly—
	Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 286, Noes 259.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 7 disagreed to
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
	Lords amendments 1 to 6, 8 to 24 and 26 to 40 agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 25 and 7;
	That Roberta Blackman-Woods, Karen Bradley, Nic Dakin, Michael Fallon and Andrew Stunell be members of the Committee;
	That Michael Fallon be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Karen Bradley.)
	Question agreed to.
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 11 June and 16 October 2012 (Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (Programme) and Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely Lords Amendments Nos. 35 to 40, remaining Lords Amendments.
	Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Randall.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 313, Noes 245.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Mary Creagh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given what the House has just decided, I seek your guidance. The Government have tabled amendments to this Bill in the other place to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. They did that after the Bill had completed its passage in this House, which means that right hon. and hon. Members have not been able to utter a single word about those proposals. Given the programme motion just decided and the limited time for debate, it seems unlikely that the House will have an opportunity to debate the board’s abolition, and we may not be able to vote on the specific proposals relating to the AWB without compromising other parts of the Bill with which we might agree.
	How can it be right for a proposal that will undermine wages for many rural workers to be enacted without this House ever having the chance to debate and challenge the Government on these proposals? May I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Dawn Primarolo: As I think the hon. Lady knows, that is not matter for the Chair and it is certainly not a point of order with regard to business. She has taken time from the business to make her point very forcefully and it is on the record. In terms of guidance from me, I say only that that was not a point of order and there is nothing further that I can do as Deputy Speaker. We will therefore proceed.
	I draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 64, 65, 66 and 104. If the House agrees to them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 56
	 — 
	Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Jo Swinson: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 35.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendments 36 to 38 and Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) to words so restored to the Bill.
	Lords amendment 39.
	Lords amendment 40, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (h) in lieu, and amendments (i) and (ii) to Government amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu.

Jo Swinson: May I say what a great pleasure it is to see you back in the Chair after your time away, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am sure the whole House will wish to echo that sentiment.
	As has already been discussed in this place and the other place, the measures in this Bill aim to promote long-term growth and reduce regulatory burdens on business. Consideration in the House of Lords has led
	to important changes to the Bill, the great majority of which the Government believe strengthen and improve it, and we will consider those changes when we discuss the second group of amendments. The first group of amendments deals with the few issues where the Government do not support the change proposed in the House of Lords. We have reflected carefully in the light of the strong views expressed and I will take each issue in turn.
	As I outlined on Report, we want a strong, independent Equality and Human Rights Commission, and a great deal has already been achieved since we last debated that matter in the House. We have appointed a new chair of the EHRC, who has been welcomed by Members from all parties, and six new members to its board. We have announced a budget, agreed with the EHRC, to enable it to continue its important work.
	Under the leadership of Baroness O’Neill, we are confident that the organisation will go from strength to strength, but for any organisation to be successful, it must have clarity of purpose. The general duty is not a core purpose; it is a much more vague and aspirational statement. Although I am sure that people can agree with the sentiments it expresses, it does not help the commission or anyone else to understand clearly, in a focused way, what it is there to do and, importantly, what it can achieve. That is why we are seeking to repeal the general duty. The change will not hinder the EHRC’s ability to fulfil its important duties and responsibilities.
	We are also changing the commission’s monitoring duty to ensure that it reports on its core functions, rather than on the state of society generally. That will enable the EHRC to continue to promote equality of opportunity, tackle discrimination, and protect and promote human rights, but more effectively than before. It will also enable the EHRC to gain the that respect hon. Members want it to have as our equality body and national human rights institution.

Anne McGuire: Will the hon. Lady explain why there is a contradiction between the EHRC’s core objectives and that aspiration?

Jo Swinson: The EHRC’s objectives are clearly outlined in sections 8 and 9 of the Equality Act 2006. As I have said, although section 3 of the Act and the general duty paint a broad overarching vision, they do not focus specifically on equality, diversity and human rights as outlined in sections 8 and 9, which is what the EHRC needs to focus on day to day.
	The House should remember that the commission will still have the responsibility and duty to promote understanding of equality and diversity; to encourage good practice in relation to equality and diversity; to promote equality of opportunity; to promote awareness and understanding of rights under the Equality Acts; to enforce the Equality Acts; to work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment; to promote the understanding of the importance of human rights; to encourage good practice in relation to human rights; to promote awareness, understanding and protection of human rights; and to encourage public authorities to comply with section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Therefore, the EHRC duties that remain are significant
	and wide-ranging—its remit is wide and it has a huge amount of work to do—but they are not the broad, overarching and rather more vague aspirations outlined in the general duty.

Kate Green: I am disappointed that the Government are resisting Lords amendment 35. Is the Minister aware of the fact, and does she agree, that the general duty has considerable symbolic importance? Following the debate in the House of Lords, the EHRC this week acknowledged that symbolic importance as an indication of the emphasis we place on equality of opportunity.

Jo Swinson: I understand the hon. Lady’s disappointment and the arguments put forward in the other place. She is right to an extent that the debate has become largely symbolic. In a sense, I would argue that it has become purely symbolic. If we were writing the 2006 Act from the beginning and that long list of equality and human rights duties that I have just outlined, people would not say, “Those duties are not sufficient.” Everything that the EHRC wants to do can be done under the existing duties, so she is right that the debate is to some extent symbolic. I do not believe that our measure will have an impact on the day-to-day work of the commission.

Julian Smith: To follow what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has said, I remind the House that John Wadham told the Public Bill Committee that he does not regard the change as an attack on the EHRC’s remit. There was no worry in that respect. Since that time, the EHRC made a vague and odd press statement, but John Wadham said that the change does not affect the philosophy, approach or goals of the organisation.

Jo Swinson: I take on board my hon. Friend’s point. We discussed on Report the EHRC council’s evidence to the Committee. As he says, repealing the general duty does not impact on those equalities and human rights duties. There is no suggestion that section 3 of the 2006 Act has any interpretive value in relation to other legislation, including that Act—it has no specific legal effect in and of itself. I understand the concerns, but I challenge hon. Members to suggest what concrete things the measure stops the EHRC doing. The EHRC has the powers and tools it needs to do its important work, which is how it should be.

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Debbie Abrahams: rose—

Jo Swinson: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but then I want to make progress—I am conscious of what hon. Members have said about the importance of time.

Debbie Abrahams: I raised similar points on Second Reading. What does the hon. Lady think the impact will be on the international community’s view of the Government’s equality and human rights priorities? As many have stated, the international community could see the measure as a downgrading of the Government’s equality and human rights priorities.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady raises an important point and gives me the opportunity to put firmly on the record the importance that the Government attach to the EHRC as the national human rights institution, and the importance of the dialogue and discussions we have had with the International Co-ordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, which will continue. It is vital that the EHRC maintain its A-rated status in that regard. I am therefore asking the House to reject Lords amendments 35 and 36, but I hope I have provided reassurance that the EHRC will be able to fulfil its important role in our society.

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Jo Swinson: I am sorry, but I did say that I wanted to move on after taking that last intervention.
	We recognise the strength of feeling and the views expressed on caste in another place, and the importance of the issue. It is important to put it on the record that the Government recognise that caste prejudice remains in the UK, not least as outlined in the 2010 National Institute of Economic and Social Research report. It is important to recognise that the problem is entirely contained within Hindu and Sikh communities, which is different from other forms of prejudice and discrimination, which can be much more widespread in society. That is why we are working with those communities to address the problem through an education programme supported by leading community organisations. That will be backed up by further examination by the EHRC, which reports later this year. Last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), outlined the extra funding that had been made available for the “Talk for a Change” pilot project, so we can see how attitudes could be changed within those key communities.

Jeremy Corbyn: Money for education and understanding is welcome and important. I am glad that the Government recognise that caste discrimination is a problem, but in doing so, why does the Minister not take this opportunity to mention it in law? Some who have tried to drag cases through employment tribunals and others have had great difficulty because caste prejudice is not mentioned specifically in law. If we understand that there is a problem with a form of prejudice, we should try to legislate as well as educate to eliminate it.

Jo Swinson: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is a complex issue, as the previous Government also recognised. There is not one voice from the communities about the right way to tackle this issue, or whether legislation is the best solution to the problems that have been identified. That is why, when the Equality Act 2010 was passed, the previous Government took a power to enable them to introduce caste as a characteristic protected against discrimination through secondary legislation. But the communities are very concerned about the possibility of increasing stigma by using legislation to try to deal with this issue—

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend’s predecessor as Equalities Minister was clear that the evidence was compelling and that the Government should
	act. Because the Government have not acted, as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out, cases of caste discrimination that people would like to bring are being held up. Cannot the Minister understand that the Government need to make a decision today to recognise caste discrimination and put it in legislation?

Jo Swinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have spoken before about this issue, because it affects many of his constituents. It does him great credit that he speaks out for them and what they would like to see happen. In terms of the evidence of whether legislation is required at this point, we are not yet convinced that it is the right way forward. Some discrimination cases can already be brought under employment law. Some cases of the operation of prejudice would fall outside discrimination law, but might be able to be brought under other forms of law, such as constructive dismissal legislation. The NIESR report contained a range of cases, many of which do not actually fall within the scope of discrimination law, such as prejudice within society outside of the workplace or the sale of goods and services. Therefore the number of cases that would be potentially covered is quite small. A range of groups has expressed significant concerns about legislation on this issue, including many Sikh and Hindu groups, some of which represent low castes, such as Gujarati Arya Kshatriya Mahasabha UK, the Sikh Council UK, the National Council of Hindu Temples UK, the Rita Trust, the Hindu Forum of Britain, Vishwa Hindu Parishad UK, the National Hindu Students Forum UK and Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh UK. All those organisations have expressed their concern about legislating, and we need to listen to their voices.

Andrew Stunell: I have a lot of time and respect for the work that my hon. Friend is doing on this, but there is real disappointment in the House that the Government are not proceeding on this. It is not exclusively a matter for the Hindu community or one that should be decided by the leadership of Hindu organisations, which—if I may say so—may in some cases be facilitating the caste system here in the UK. We need a robust response from the Government very quickly.

Jo Swinson: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about organisations that represent different parts of the Hindu and Sikh communities, and that is why it is important to point out that they do not only represent high castes: some of them represent low castes as well, and there is concern across the spectrum. It is a serious issue that requires serious consideration, and the Government are not ruling out legislation. We have the power to legislate under secondary legislation: what I am saying is that we are not convinced today that that is necessary.

John McDonnell: I moved the compromise amendment that was accepted by the whole House. It provided that the Government would legislate if they could identify incidents of caste discrimination. The report identifies such incidents. It was not a matter of the form of legislation: it was a commitment to legislate. The Government are taking an extreme step backwards from what was agreed by the whole House in 2010, when it was opposed by those
	same organisations that the Minister has listed today. Traditional Hindus opposed Mahatma Ghandi’s attempt to outlaw caste discrimination in 1933.

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and the work he has done on this issue over many years. I reiterate some of the concerns that we have heard from those groups. For example, GAKM UK, an organisation that represents a community officially recognised as low caste in India, fears that by enacting this provision, Parliament could undo all the work done by communities over the past 20 years to try to remove the differentiation by caste in all aspects of life. I am not saying that these are not important issues or that ultimately it would not be helpful to enact the provision, I am saying that we need to proceed with great caution, because the communities affected have significant differences of view. That is why we want to ensure that the EHRC makes a further assessment of the views and evidence on this issue, on which it will report back later this year. The Government have already said, through the work and the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), and through discussions in the other place, that if the assessment shows that we need to legislate, the option remains open to us.

Simon Hughes: I have raised this issue with my hon. Friend. The amendments, on a general duty of equality and on caste discrimination, both had very large majorities in the House of Lords, and I am very sympathetic to them. Bluntly, it seems to me that the only way for the Government to get themselves off the hook is to ask the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which consists of Members from both Houses and all parties, to look urgently at both matters and make recommendations. I sit on that Committee and could make sure that that happens. I think the Committee would recommend that they be supported. I wonder whether the Minister is willing to go down that road.

Jo Swinson: It is not for the Government to instruct Joint Committees to undertake particular investigations.
	As I was saying, the reason for caution on the part of the Government relates to a lack of evidence. The NIESR report is clear about the lack of evidence. It states that there is no clear evidence on the extent of caste discrimination and whether it is changing in the UK. Further evidence would therefore certainly be helpful in assisting the Government’s decision making. In addition to what the EHRC is doing, the Government intend to conduct a full consultation and publish a report on its outcome. If the evidence shows clearly that legislation is the right way forward, then, as I have said, powers already exist in law to extend those protections to cover caste by means of a statutory instrument.

Sarah Wollaston: The UK is a signatory to the convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, and clearly there is a feeling that this is a form of race discrimination. Has the Minister listened to representations from women’s groups? Women may have an additional vulnerability to discrimination within communities.

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend raises an important point on whether this is a form of race discrimination. I think that the law shows that in some instances it may well be that cases could be brought under race discrimination when there is an issue of caste, although not necessarily in every case, which is why this discussion has arisen. She is also right to make the point about women’s groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who leads on this issue, has met a wide range of groups and organisations representing different sides, including women. It is important to ensure that all people in the community are considered.
	Taking the step of legislating would mean that every employer, service provider and public authority across Great Britain would need to familiarise themselves with new legal obligations, despite the very low chance of ever being faced with a case of caste discrimination. That is why we have developed an educational programme. The EHRC has offered to complete its examination into how best to address caste prejudice and discrimination, and we will be consulting together for views across the communities. On that basis, I hope the House will agree that it is not appropriate at this time to agree with the other place on amendment 37.

John Hemming: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jo Swinson: I want to make a little progress, because I am conscious of time.
	Amendments 38 and 39 focus on health and safety. Addressing the concerns about strict liability for breach of health and safety duties is an important element of the Government’s wider reforms to tackle both the perception of a compensation culture and the damaging effect it has on sensible health and safety management and business growth—concerns consistently reported by businesses.
	As was outlined on Report, the purpose of this reform is to establish the important principle that a responsible employer should not be liable to a civil claim for compensation where they have taken all reasonable steps and have not been negligent. The substantive law is unaffected. Criminal offences and their enforcement will not be affected, and employees will continue to have the right to bring claims for compensation where they can prove their employer has been negligent.
	The Government do not believe that it is justifiable to hold employers liable for incidents outside of their control that they could not have reasonably prevented. The modern framework of law and supporting evidence and guidance means that employees are in a much better position than they have been historically to demonstrate whether their employer is at fault, and that will remain relevant as evidence in assessing what employers should have known and whether an employer’s behaviour was reasonable. That reform will mean that in future there will be a consistent approach to civil litigation across all health and safety legislation. This is simpler for all to understand and will therefore have a greater impact in increasing employers’ confidence to do the right things to protect their employees and to develop and grow their business.
	We have proposed an amendment in lieu of amendment 38 and proposed that the House should agree with the other place in its amendment 39, which,
	as well as reinstating the main provision, would also reintroduce amendments agreed in Grand Committee in response to points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Committee took the view that a power to extend the policy to wider health and safety legislation was too wide, and the Government have agreed to remove it.
	I shall now turn to letting and managing agents. Many letting agents act lawfully and provide a good service, but there is a minority whose service quality is unacceptable—no doubt Members on both sides of the House have heard tales from their constituents where this has been the case. Consumer protection legislation covers many of the problematic practices, but enforcement is patchy, particularly in less serious cases. Also, existing legislation does not give consumers direct access to redress.
	The noble Lady Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town said in the other place that her amendment simply required agents to sign up to a redress scheme. In response, this Government amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order requiring letting and managing agents of privately rented and residential leasehold homes to belong to a redress scheme. The Government will consult on the detail, taking into account the recommendations of the Communities and Local Government Committee Select Committee and the Office of Fair Trading.

Peter Bottomley: I look forward, if I can, to contributing to this debate later. In the consultation, will the Government consider setting minimum standards, adopting other codes, such as the code for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors? Will the consultation also include disciplinary procedures and will there be an improvement to the protection of leaseholder funds?

Jo Swinson: I know that the hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments and is keen to press the Government on these issues. It is important that consumers have access to redress where letting and managing agents do not act as they should. Obviously, the specifics of the consultation have not yet been drawn up, but I am sure that, through Hansard, his suggestions will be well-received. I know that the Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), will be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns in more detail in order to ensure that we get this right. Taking this power in the Bill will give us an opportunity to ensure that we get the details right. I hope I can reassure him, however, when I say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing is keen to ensure that we make speedy progress, while still getting the details right.

Clive Betts: I thank the Minister for the letter she sent to me, as Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee. As she knows, we are conducting an inquiry into the private rented sector and are taking evidence on letting agents and proposals to change regulations in a number of areas, but I can assure her that we will, in particular, consider the details of the redress scheme and I hope therefore that we will be able to inform the Government before they consider their secondary legislation in detail.

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind offer. No doubt, his Committee’s work on this matter will be of great value to the Government when we put together the consultation and work out how to deliver the framework—it will not be a single scheme; there could be a variety of schemes—to ensure that tenants have access to redress.
	The Government intend to introduce the secondary legislation as soon as reasonably possible, but it is right that this be an order-making power, because it will give us the flexibility that comes from consultation and the due processes of policy making and scrutiny.

John Healey: The Lords amendment tabled by Baroness Hayter simply extended the estate agents system of regulation, which has been in place for more than 30 years, to letting and managing agents. It includes a redress scheme, but goes wider, including to cover some of the concerns that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has raised. Why do the Government not simply accept that amendment?

Jo Swinson: The right hon. Gentleman raises a good point, but there is also a good answer. The Government are proposing an amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 40, which, as he said, subjects letting and management agents to the Estate Agents Act 1979. The amendment made to the Bill at present would not properly achieve the effect of requiring redress. It would impose undue regulatory burdens by making such provision much broader. The requirements of the 1979 Act are rightly onerous, because purchasing a house is something that people might do only once or twice in their lifetimes and it involves a huge sum of money. There is therefore a strong case for significant levels of regulation, which is not made in quite the same way for letting agents, where redress is the most important element.

John Healey: rose—

Jo Swinson: If the right hon. Gentleman is unsatisfied when I have finished answering his intervention, he may have another bite of the cherry. The Government’s other concern about Lords amendment 40 is that it does not work with the devolution settlement, because the 1979 Act is a piece of UK-wide legislation, whereas housing and letting issues are devolved to the devolved Administrations. The amendment would therefore cause a significant difficulty with them. I presume that is an inadvertent effect of the amendment on the part of its movers in the other place; none the less, we would not want it to make it into the Bill.

John Healey: I am somewhat disturbed by that response and the suggestion that the homes that people buy are somehow more important than other people’s homes. We are dealing with people’s homes. Almost 9 million households now rent in the private sector, which includes 1 million families with children. They require some assurance—some security and basic rights in the market that they do not have at the moment—which a redress scheme on its own will not provide.

Jo Swinson: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says; we may have to agree to disagree on this matter. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we are
	dealing with people’s homes, which is why this measure is so important. Incidentally, it is also something that his party did not see fit to introduce in 13 years in government. This Government are righting the situation by making amendments to ensure that there is a redress scheme. Indeed, when the Lords amendment we are discussing was introduced in the other place, that is the argument that was made and that is what was said was most important. I agree that a redress schemes is important to ensure that where there is a problem, tenants can have an avenue for redress.
	Indeed, such a scheme has two functions, because it is not just about ensuring that when somebody has a problem, they can get redress. The very fact that agents have to sign up to redress schemes in the first place is in itself a driver of behaviour to ensure less wrongdoing in the first place. More widely, residential leasehold matters are being taken forward separately by the Department for Communities and Local Government in the round tables it is conducting. The noble Lady Baroness Gardner of Parkes raised that issue in the other place.
	I hope I have been able to outline the Government’s position on the Lords amendments and provide some reassurance to Members of this House.

Chuka Umunna: It is good to see you back in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Before I turn to the four issues covered by this group of amendments, it is worth revisiting the supposed purpose of the Bill. It is supposed to be an enterprise Bill that will generate growth. It was referred to as a Christmas tree of a Bill when it left us, but it has since become something of a forest.
	Let me deal with each of the four issues in turn. The first is the Government’s move to repeal the general duty for the Equality and Human Rights Commission contained in section 3 of the Equality Act 2006. The Lords wished to reverse the Government’s move to repeal section 3 of the 2006 Act and we agree with them. The general duty sets out the mission and vision of the commission. It is worth repeating that duty, which is for the commission to encourage and support
	“the development of a society in which…people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination…there is respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights…there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual…each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and…there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity…equality and human rights.”
	The Government wish to repeal all of that as part of their red tape challenge, on the basis that it is a
	“vague, unnecessary and obsolete provision from the Equality Act 2006”,
	as the Minister put it in her letter to me yesterday. I could not disagree with her more.
	I made the point on Report that this is not red tape. Vision and mission are important. The reason that the Government have failed on all manner of fronts is that they lack vision and mission. As Baroness Campbell, who sponsored the amendment in the Lords, said, the duty imports the cultural and ethical principles of equality and human rights into the commission’s remit. It makes it clear that the commission is there not just to enforce rules but to change culture.
	Personally, I believe that we as a country have made a great deal of progress in this regard since I grew up here and since members of my family arrived here from abroad. However, Baroness Campbell also said:
	“We would not wish to risk slipping back to the time before the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, but if Section 3 goes and the equality duty is weakened or lost shortly after, I feel that is precisely where we will be heading.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1278.]
	Indeed, Doreen Lawrence has resolutely opposed the removal of section 3. Baroness Campbell enjoyed overwhelming support from most of the others who spoke on this issue in the Lords, and numerous others outside Parliament have objected to the repeal, fearing that the changes will result in a much weaker body. Those who have objected include Justice, the Fawcett Society, Mind, the Refugee Council and the Equality Trust.
	Having listened to the arguments on this matter in both Houses and outside Parliament, the commission itself has now said that unless the Government can provide additional robust reasons for removing the general duty—which they have not done—the case for removing the Lords amendments in the Commons will not have been made. The commission therefore continues to support the retention of the general duty and the maintenance of the position established by the Lords. I put it to the Minister that if the commission is content to support the retention of the duty—which is doing no harm; indeed, it is doing quite the opposite—why does she think that she knows better?
	Let us not forget that the Government are not only seeking to water down the commission’s remit; they have also cut its budget by more than 60%. The cut was so great that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights was moved to write to the Government in June and July last year to express concerns.

Julian Smith: How does the shadow Secretary of State account for the evidence given by John Wadham, the chair of the commission, when he appeared before the Committee? He stated:
	“I do not think that it is so problematic, because other parts of the legislation provide sufficient clarity on what our job really is.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79.]
	How does the hon. Gentleman account for the chair of the organisation—[Interruption.] How does he account for a board member of the organisation saying that in Parliament, yet now doing a flip-flop? Which is true? What does the organisation believe, and what does the hon. Gentleman’s party believe?

Chuka Umunna: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, our party has made it very clear what we believe. Mr Wadham can speak for himself, but I must first point out that he is not the chair of the organisation. Secondly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has made it clear that it has changed its position on this matter. Thirdly, we are hardly going to find a senior member of an agency such as the commission seeking to have a public row with its Minister. However, I think we all know exactly what people in the commission think. I was told that the last time we discussed this matter in the House, Opposition Members were being cheered on by employees of the commission who were
	watching the debate. I am sure that they are watching this debate right now, and that they will have listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
	The Minister should also reflect on what the majority of her party’s members think about this issue. They cannot fathom why she and the Business Secretary are making all these changes to people’s rights at work, to the role of the commission and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), the shadow Minister for employment relations has told me about his trip to the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference last month. He spoke at a fringe meeting on employment rights—I did not know he was going to do that—at which the Minister tried to justify all these changes. My understanding is that people walked out of that room in disgust at the measures that she is trying to push through today. I have, of course, castigated my hon. Friend for forgetting to take Labour party membership forms with him to dish out; he will take a big box of them next time. We support the Lords amendments in this respect.
	Let me turn now to deal with caste discrimination, a matter that has attracted considerable interest outside this House. Labour has a proud history of tackling injustice and discrimination. We believe that people should be able to make the most of their potential opportunities—whatever their race, gender, family background or social circumstances. In recent months, organisations such as the Anti-caste Discrimination Alliance have campaigned for stronger action to tackle caste discrimination, and their case has been powerful. Every community group and every faith group to which we have spoken—on either side of the debate in recent days—has been united in the belief that caste discrimination has no place in our country.
	We Labour Members thus believe that we must send a strong and clear message today—that caste discrimination is completely unacceptable, and that we support taking more action. That is why we will support the amendment. We need to do more to ensure that the small number of people who face such injustice have access to the redress they deserve and have somewhere to turn to for support.
	It is fair to say, however, that some have raised legitimate concerns about the practicalities of how the legislation would work—about its drafting and implementation. We take those practical points seriously and we agree that any new action we take must over time reduce rather than increase the number of people being identified by their caste, eliminating discrimination in the future.

Alok Sharma: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I think all of us are united in believing that any form of discrimination—caste or any other form—is entirely wrong. It is interesting to reflect that the hon. Gentleman is talking about this issue in 2013, yet the Labour party was in power—I know the hon. Gentleman was not here then—for 13 years. Did this issue not come up at any time over 13 years and, if so, why did the Labour party not bring forward any proposals at the time? The Labour party should welcome the fact that this Government are the first to put forward an education programme to deal with the issue.

Chuka Umunna: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we sought to deal with the issue through the Equality Act 2010 and then by providing for further action to be
	taken thereafter. It is not fair for him to say that we took insufficient action during our time in government, but we needed to allow time for the communities concerned to adjust and to provide an opportunity for the education which he talks about. Despite the time that has passed—the Act was passed back in 2010—it is clear that more still needs to happen.
	We do not believe that the Government are doing enough on this issue, which is part of the reason why we will vote against the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. I hope that further discussions can take place here about the implementation of action against caste discrimination before the matter is discussed again in the other place. People on both sides of the debate have said loudly and clearly that they would like far more consultation on the subject. We hope that that can happen. The goal—the place where we all want to be—is to reach agreement on a way forward over the next few days before the provisions arrive back in the House of Lords.

Richard Fuller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chuka Umunna: I will move on, because we are short of time and I want to ensure that others can come into the debate.
	I shall move on to deal with health and safety. Clause 61, to which Lords amendments 38 and 39 apply, is designed to remove civil liability for breaches of duty imposed by health and safety regulations. In so doing, it overturns an accepted and established health and safety regime that has been on the statute book for a very long time—for over a century. What the Government are seeking to do is overturn legislation that has been in place since a ruling in 1898. The consequence of that is serious. The clause removes the existing and long-established right of an employee to rely on a breach of health and safety in any claims for personal injury. As was said in the other place, in respect of employer liability it will force injured employees to face
	“a near impossible evidential burden.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1502.]
	The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has stated that the clause will favour negligent employers over those who take health and safety considerations seriously and who treat people with the care that they are due.
	The Government have not been able to provide evidence on the matter to support legislative change. They justify their amendment by referring to a recommendation in Professor Löfstedt’s report “Reclaiming health and safety for all”, published in November 2011. However, Professor Löfstedt himself has expressed doubts about the Government’s plan. In his review of progress a year on from his report, he states:
	“the proposed amendment to the Health and Safety at Work Act reverses the current position on civil liability. This means that, unless exceptions apply, claims for compensation in relation to breaches of health and safety legislation will need to prove that the employer has been negligent. The approach being taken is more far-reaching than I anticipated in my recommendation.”

Andrew McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of the failure of cases that would otherwise have succeeded, people who have not received compensation will look to the statutory
	authorities for their rehabilitation—for their care, speech therapy and physiotherapy—and that that will effectively constitute the nationalisation of rehabilitation?

Chuka Umunna: I do agree. I think that describing it as the nationalisation of rehabilitation is entirely appropriate. I know that my hon. Friend, whose practice advised people who were claiming for personal injury, speaks with the benefit of huge experience.
	The Government declined to undertake the review that Professor Löfstedt recommended on the restriction of the number of situations in which strict liability would apply, saying that it would be too complex. The other place rightly voiced serious concerns about that. Lord McKenzie of Luton said:
	“On the basis of the flimsiest of evidence, the opportunities for those injured at work to obtain redress are being substantially impaired. We should be very clear about that. This is not ‘business as usual’. The beneficiaries, of course, will be the providers of employer's liability insurance. The losers will include taxpayers because reduced compensation will mean reduced benefit recovery.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1504.]
	In less than a fortnight it will be workers memorial day, and many ceremonies, involving many Members of Parliament, will take place around the country to remember men and women who have been injured or killed in the workplace. The current framework is accepted and well established, and has helped to prevent workplace deaths and injuries. I ask the Government to reflect on the debate and the vote in the other place, and to preserve the status quo in the interests of the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between employee and employer in keeping the employee safe at work. We support the Lords amendment in that context.

David Anderson: I apologise for arriving late. I was at a meeting of the Backbench Business Committee.
	My hon. Friend has just made an important point. This is not about compensation as such; it is about ensuring that employers introduce and abide by regulations that prevent accidents from happening in the first place because they are frightened of having to pay the compensation. That financial disincentive will drive employers to do the right thing in circumstances in which they might not otherwise have done so. This is not about people at work receiving money; it is about people at work not getting hurt and not getting killed.

Chuka Umunna: I entirely agree. This is one of the aspects of the debate on health and safety that I find particularly frustrating. While we must of course retain a balance, we must also be clear about the fact that protecting people at work and keeping them safe is not a matter of red tape. It is a matter of safety at work.
	Lords amendment 40, to which the Government have tabled their own amendment, relates to estate agents. It represents a welcome U-turn by the Government, who have backed Labour’s proposals to give greater protection to tenants and landlords by forcing letting agents to join a scheme to deal with complaints. It is a victory for tenants and landlords who rely on agents to rent, or care for, their property in a market described as the wild west by the industry itself.
	I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the organisations across the sector who have worked with us to secure this change in position from the Government. Tenants and landlords have for too long had little protection, and have been bewildered as to why it has taken so long for the Government to recognise the need for change. Until this eleventh-hour U-turn, the Government seemed out of touch and isolated on this issue. It is good that they have changed position, recognising the need for a proper complaints system for all consumers. However, we are disappointed that the Government have not gone further, having rejected other parts of Baroness Hayter’s amendment.

John Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that slight qualification, but he may be in danger of overstating the extent of the U-turn. There are growing problems of unjustified, unfair, upfront fees, misleading advertisements, repairs not being done and visits not being made. This is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step, and will prove insufficient to deal with a market that is not functioning properly and fairly in the interests of tenants or landlords.

Chuka Umunna: There must be some telepathy going on here, because I was about to go on to say that it is important to note that the majority of the sector see the Government’s amendment today as a first step, not a last word.

Peter Bottomley: The issue of caste was very well covered yesterday on the BBC’s “Newsnight” programme, and I hope the Government will take up the suggestion that there should be discussion over the next few days about how the points made can be incorporated into the aim to get fairness. My reaction on watching people describe what it was like to be told by someone junior to them that they should not take orders from them because of something that happened in their family past was that that was ludicrous.
	Ghandi called the untouchables the children of God over 70 years ago—in the 1930s, I think—and we ought to find some way of picking that up and echoing it in our country.
	I could speak on a number of issues, but I will stick to the issue of agents, and in particular leasehold managing agents. I hope that when the Select Committee looks at this, it will address not only the letting of residential tenancies but the 3 million leaseholds in this country, many of which are held by people who are old, frail and on fixed incomes. My hon. Friend the Minister may be right to say that the majority of managing agents behave well. In the past, however, many of them, and especially those who were associated with the freeholder, ripped off their leaseholders left, right and centre. Such agents are a minority, but they hold the majority of the responsibility for managing leasehold properties, and the faster they are brought out into transparency and openness, the better.
	I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing. Through his efforts and the co-operation of his colleagues, the Government have come forward with a welcome initiative. I am not arguing it is completely right—I would be surprised if it were—but its 10 measures deal with a variety of issues, the most important of which is openness.
	Having a redress scheme requires having a code. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has a good code, as do some of the associations of letting agents. This explains why most people have argued for licensing, which would include an ombudsman service and a redress system. As things stand, we are going to get the redress system, but we are not necessarily going to get the code.
	I hope Ministers, either in this place or the other place, can assure the Houses of Parliament that they agree that having redress requires having a code, and that managing agents will not be able to practice if they have been struck off or cannot give adequate assurances that they meet the code and will abide by decisions if they are held to have offended against it.
	Ordinary disputes are one thing. I ought to declare that I have an interest in a small leasehold flat—I am now a freeholder—and our managing agent and freeholder behaved impeccably with the six leaseholders. I have no complaint about that at all. I have taken advantage of the present system, but many people have not.
	In Oakland court in my constituency, a group of really old people took action against their freeholder as they were being charged for a warden’s flat when there was no warden. Eventually, when they could get to the leasehold valuation tribunal, there was an effective judgment that would have given back to them—although sadly many of them had died—not only tens of thousands of pounds but possibly £100,000. Eventually, they came to a settlement and I pay tribute to the freeholders for doing that.
	To have clever lawyers, some of whom will appear at LEASE—the Government-approved agency for giving advice on leaseholds—advise managing agents on what can be done with leaseholders within the law does not strike me as balanced. I ask the Government to ask LEASE to ensure that at least one of the two people I will name is invited to join its board. One is Sebastian O’Kelly, who runs the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and the other is Martin Boyd.
	Martin Boyd got involved because he was one of the leaseholders who took on the Tchenguiz brothers. It is not for me to get involved with whatever happened, right or wrong, with the Tchenguiz brothers, the action to which they were subject and the separate action that they are now taking—although I would have thought that a handshake and an apology would solve that. I am saying, however, that the Tchenguiz brothers do not have the best reputation for how they deal with leaseholders. Sometimes, they appear to charge rather high sums if someone wants to sublet a leasehold property and sometimes they want to sell it. A whole series of other issues should, I believe, be fully examined under parliamentary privilege.
	It seems to me that officials in the Departments involved have had to work really hard to produce the five pages of new clauses that we are discussing, so I shall not add to their burdens by trying to go through them in detail.
	The permanent secretaries at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice have a responsibility to add to the numbers of people involved, because Parliament will ensure that the issue gets proper attention—not just the 9 million tenancies,
	but the 3 million leaseholders. That will require serious effort in Government and by Parliament and I hope that in time the injustices that are rampant will have evaporated, partly through transparency and partly through legislative action.
	Let me give an example of transparency. I challenge every managing agent to tell every leaseholder now what commission the freeholder is getting on the insurance premiums to cover the value of the properties. Those commissions go up to 65%. In my view, they should not be more than about 5% or 10%. Let us get that out in the open, and we will get the rest of the muck out afterwards.

Anne McGuire: I want to make a few remarks about the abolition of the general duty.
	It is sad that we are repealing the general duty under the Equality Act 2006. It was not plucked out of mid-air and something that the then Government suddenly decided to put into an Act of Parliament. Progress towards the Act was long and conciliatory and it worked for this Parliament and organisations outside it, yet under the guise of deregulation we are seeing the undoing of many years’ work, much consensus and much acceptance that the general duty laid out a set of values and principles for the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
	I find it doubly sad that the Minister, who has apparently built up a reputation as a champion of equality, is having to justify this proposal today. The general duty sets out a unifying vision for society, which the EHRC must work towards. I find it disappointing that she dismissed the idea that aspiration could sit comfortably with some of the other specific duties of the EHRC. Unlike the Minister, I think that the general duty is fundamental to how the EHRC operates. It sets out the guiding principles and values of the EHRC. It had cross-party support and I suspect that if I checked the voting record of the Minister, I would probably find that she wholeheartedly supported that general duty in 2006, as did her party. Seven years on, what was achieved by working with her party and members of the other party in the coalition is dismissed as a burden on us all.
	Section 3 of the Equality Act 2006 brings equality and human rights together. It identifies the fact that we are defined not by our differences, but by our common humanity. To put that another way, it says, “We’re all in this equality game together.” That is what the Minister has failed to see. The Government have not defined what the EHRC would do better as a result of the abolition of the general duty. They have made an assertion, but they have proved nothing about the repeal of section 3.
	We cannot consider the repeal of section 3 in isolation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) identified, the EHRC is undergoing tremendous change. It has had its budget cut by 60%, yet the stoics within the EHRC have said that they can continue to do some of the good work. It has been weakened by the withdrawal of many of the facilities that it offered, including a telephone helpline. Where do people go now? What will the Minister say to people who need the help and support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission? The general duty reflects the values that a modern society should aspire to.

John Hemming: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the key thing about the general duty is section 12 and the requirement to monitor the progress of society towards the general duty? That is where it has a practical effect.

Anne McGuire: Yes and, as I understand it, the monitoring period has been extended from three years to five years. The hon. Gentleman has identified an important aspect. We should get away from the idea that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is merely the sum of its compliance powers. It is more than that. It should be working with the wider community to establish a society that has equality and human rights at its heart. The Government’s disregard rejects the view that the EHRC has a role working with the wider community.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham mentioned Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. The House owes the baroness a great debt of gratitude because she has a long record of working on human rights and equality issues—far longer, probably, than some of the younger Members of this House have been alive. She knows what she is talking about, and her charge to the Government was that they have yet to prove that a commission with fewer powers and tools at its disposal will be more effective than one with the role and powers bestowed on it by Parliament some six years ago.
	The Minister has failed to make that case. I hope she will think again. If she is not prepared to do so, I hope Members in all parts of the House who believe that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has a role beyond its compliance powers will support Baroness Campbell and the House of Lords, and will support their amendment when it comes to the vote this afternoon.

Alok Sharma: I will restrict my comments to the discussion of caste discrimination. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), I think we can all agree that caste discrimination is wrong and abhorrent, as is any form of discrimination. I welcome the fact that the Government are making a real effort, taking the issue seriously and putting in place a programme of education.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Streatham would agree that, before introducing legislation, we should ensure that there is an evidence base for doing so. As I am sure he will be aware, the NIESR report was incredibly comprehensive. As I understand it, NIESR approached CasteWatch UK and Voice of Dalit International and looked back at cases that were up to 10 years old, yet it came up with a relatively low volume of caste-related incidents. I have no wish to trivialise any of those incidents, and clearly they were incredibly hurtful to the individuals involved, but I will just make the point that, ultimately, if we are to introduce legislation, we need to ensure that there is a broad evidence base for doing so. I understand that 32 people were interviewed for the NIESR report and 23 were used as case studies. Those 23 people reported 36 separate caste-related incidents.

Chuka Umunna: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to ask him two questions. Does he accept that caste discrimination is going on and, if he does, does he agree that the fact that it might be quite restricted should not preclude us taking action to protect the small number who are subject to it?

Alok Sharma: I have referred to the NIESR report, and clearly there is evidence that such discrimination is going on, and ultimately we need to ensure that there are remedies for it. As I was about to say, nearly half of the 36 incidents discussed are not covered by the area of equality legislation. Indeed, for many others there is scope to find the other remedies available.

Sarah Wollaston: Does my hon. Friend not also accept that, because the chances of a successful prosecution are small, individuals are less likely to come forward and report incidents?

Alok Sharma: That might indeed be the case. I have been a Member of Parliament for only three years—many Members have been here far longer—and I represent a constituency whose make-up means it is a microcosm of Britain, but in those three years not a single constituent has come to talk with me about being subject to caste discrimination. People have come to talk about other forms of discrimination, but certainly not caste discrimination.

Sandra Osborne: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to me the relevance of the number of constituents who have come forward to talk with him, or with anyone else? Surely a few cases means a few cases too many. If we base our understanding of discrimination on numbers, we will not get very far.

Alok Sharma: I understand the sentiment the hon. Lady expresses, but is she suggesting that the Government should legislate to protect people from every conceivable form of discrimination? We know that class discrimination exists, as do other forms of discrimination, but we follow other approaches for those, rather than legislation.

David Ward: Is my hon. Friend not concerned that most ordinary, sensible people probably believe that caste discrimination is already illegal and that if we do not go ahead with this, we will be sending out a message that it is acceptable and that claims against it are not supported by the law?

Alok Sharma: Of course it is unacceptable. As I said earlier, any form of discrimination is unacceptable, but we need to ensure that the remedies we have available are used, and ultimately there has to be an evidence base for legislation.

Khalid Mahmood: If a carer was to refuse to care for an individual because they were of a lower caste, how does the hon. Gentleman think that would be remedied?

Alok Sharma: I took part in a debate on Radio 5 live this morning, and that was one of the examples that came up. Clearly it is unacceptable. I do not know the details of the case, and I do not know whether there is a remedy under workplace legislation, but, to continue with the theme, I think that we need to ensure that there is an evidence base. I welcome the work that the Government are proposing on education. One of the points made by a caller to the Radio 5 live debate this morning was that much of the time employers do not understand caste discrimination. That could form part of the education process. As I understand it, certainly
	based on my reading of the debate in the other place, the Government have not closed their mind to legislation. They said that an evidence base is needed and that additional work is being undertaken.

John Hemming: Does my hon. Friend accept that were the Government motion to pass, this issue would not return to the House of Lords and could not be subject to a further amendment, but it is possible to deal with it through a statutory instrument? There is general agreement that the Lords proposal is not an acceptable solution that would solve the problem properly.

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As the Minister said, this is a complex issue and there is not necessarily a common view about how we need to deal with it. That is why the proposal to have education as a first step is absolutely right. I welcome the fact that Talk for a Change will be running the—

Virendra Sharma: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that before the Race Relations Act 1976 many fewer race relations cases, if any, were taken through the courts, but after the law was passed people had the confidence to take their cases further?

Alok Sharma: I am pleased that we have come a long way from that time. We live in a modern society, and that is entirely appropriate.
	As I understand it from the debate in the other place—I am sure that the Minister will respond to this—the Government’s mind is not closed on legislation. The fact that work is going to be done by the Equality and Human Rights Commission should also be welcomed. This is a very complex issue, and it would be unfortunate if we were to follow a route of introducing legislation without having the evidence base for it.
	My final point, which was made by a caller this morning, is how much of an issue this is from the perspective of those who are second, third or fourth generation and were born and brought up in this country. I do not define myself by my caste and I suspect that there are millions like me up and down the country. I will therefore support the Government’s motion.

Andrew McDonald: I should like to speak to amendment 38. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, this proposal goes much further than the one made by Professor Löfstedt in his review of health and safety law. Professor Löfstedt referred to ending civil liability, but only in relation to strict liability, whereas these proposals will impact on the vast majority of employer liability cases, where breaches of statutory duty allegations are usually more important than negligence. In every case, the injured worker will have to prove that the employer knew, or ought to have known, that a machine was unsafe, equipment was faulty, or there had been previous accidents—something known to the employer but unlikely to be known by the employee.
	It is worth noting that over 90% of health and safety regulation enforcement is through the civil courts. There are some 78,000 claims for compensation following accidents at work every year, but only 1,000 criminal prosecutions under health and safety, so if this proposal proceeds we will be singularly relying on the Health and Safety Executive to do a better job than it is doing now—and what is the likelihood of that, given the resources that are attributed to that organisation?
	This is not fanciful or esoteric: we are talking about real people’s lives. Michael Adamson was a 29-year-old electrician who suffered a fatal electrocution in the course of his employment in August 2005. The accident occurred during the construction of a retail outlet when he touched a cable labelled “Not in use”. The cable was live and Michael was fatally injured, but Michael’s family saw justice because they were able to rely on the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. If they had not been able to rely on the regulations, they would not have been compensated for the loss of a son and brother.
	Mr Hill, who was a roofer and slater, fell from scaffolding during the course of his work and suffered very serious injuries resulting in incomplete tetraplegia. The accident occurred as he came down the scaffolding on a portable ladder that was not fixed or in any way secured; he fell to the ground, causing the injury. His injuries were so severe that damages were agreed at just under £2 million. The court held that there was no liability at common law, but there was liability under the Work at Height Regulations 2005. Were it not for those regulations, Mr Hill, whose injuries were so serious and life-altering, would not have received any compensation.
	Finally, Mr John Smyth suffered catastrophic injuries in the course of his employment. He was working on a barge. A coupling on a crane that was moving a steel beam overhead failed and the beam fell, striking Mr Smyth on his head. He suffered a severe brain injury and has been rendered quadriplegic. His life and the lives of his family have been shattered. Compensation exceeding £2 million was obtained, because Mr Smyth could rely on the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005. He would not have received any compensation if those regulations could not be relied on.
	Significant sums are involved in catastrophic injury cases. When I left practice, I left behind a case load that ran into hundreds of millions of pounds. Those are not windfalls for people. This is not about a compensation culture. These people have not won the pools or the lottery. Those moneys are there to provide them with lifelong care—with transport, rehabilitation, speech therapy and physiotherapy—but the Government’s proposal seeks to pull the rug from under all those people. Why on earth will this Government not think things through? Where will those people turn? They will turn to the statutory services. Are the Government serious about nationalising rehabilitation and giving the bill to the taxpayer while letting the insurers off the hook? Insurers are rubbing their hands in glee at these proposals, and it is about time that this Government woke up. It will cost this country a fortune if they proceed in this way.
	People now face difficulties in making their case. Lord Brown, a former Supreme Court justice, highlighted in the other place the difficulties experienced by workers in proving the negligence of employers. He said that when he worked as a barrister a number of claims were lost
	“because the claimants were not quite able to assemble all the evidence necessary to prove actual negligence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1513.]
	That is the situation that people will be placed in—they will be denied a basic human right, and at a massive cost to the taxpayer.
	Karl Tonks, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, has said:
	“Lord Brown’s comments go to the heart of the matter. People injured through no fault of their own will find it extremely challenging to secure justice.”
	He also commented on
	“unintended consequences which will not just affect the workers involved, but society as a whole.”
	I beg the Government to think again about the proposals. I do not think that they have thought through the consequences of their actions. This will result in a lot of misery for people who will have to turn to our statutory services and not receive the care and attention they need. The lack of availability of district nurses will mean that those with a spinal cord injury will have to wait in their properties for the nurse on duty to evacuate their bowels at a time not of their choosing, when the whole point—the whole caboodle—is to make sure that people can live the lives that they want to and fulfil their potential. The proposals will deny them that opportunity and I beg the Government to think again.

Richard Fuller: I will speak in support of Lords amendment 37, which would provide people with legal protection against caste discrimination in the workplace.
	I have listened intently to the debate. A number of speakers have said that this is a complex issue, including the Minister, the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). I regard all those colleagues with great esteem, so I hope that they will forgive my saying that the idea that this is a complex issue is rubbish. This is a straightforward issue. Caste discrimination in the workplace is wrong and the people who suffer from it deserve legal protection. That is the beginning and end of the matter.
	To help the Minister, who with the best of intentions has found herself on the wrong side of the argument, I will answer three questions that I expect this Government and the previous Government asked on this issue. Is there evidence of a problem of caste discrimination? Is legislation the best approach? Is a delay to implementation justified?
	On whether there is evidence of a problem, I have received a petition signed by more than 300 of my constituents in Bedford and Kempston. I have received representations from the Valmiki community, the Ravidassia community and the Dr Ambedkar Mission Society in Bedford. Those who saw “Newsnight”—a current affairs programme on the BBC—will have seen, towards the end of the programme, personal testimonies from three of my constituents: Mr Ram Dhariwal, Mr Sam Kalyan and, most movingly, Mr Prithi Kaeley.
	On behalf of those constituents and many others, I must say that I cannot see how people can argue that there is no evidence of a problem. Some may say that the studies by the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance and the NIESR did not provide sufficient evidence. Those reports made me angry and made me cry. They made me feel that action on this issue was all the more important.
	I repeat what I said to the Minister earlier on the evidence for a problem. She should listen to her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who said:
	“The evidence is compelling—so hopefully the Government who said that they would consider any evidence coming forward will now bring forward their own amendment to include caste.”
	We are not talking about caste discrimination in social or personal circumstances. However, I understand that when the Equality Act 2010 was debated, the then Solicitor-General accepted that the evidence showed that caste discrimination was prevalent in personal and social situations. I ask the Government, and in particular the Minister, whether we can rest comfortably on the assumption that discrimination that persists widely in personal and social situations will magically halt at the threshold to the shop floor or the door to the office? That is a hard position to take.
	On whether legislation is the right approach, I say to the Government that Talk for a Change is an inappropriate and insufficient measure. The NIESR report advised that education would not be sufficient. I ask the Minister whether she would rest on education alone as the answer to racist or sexist behaviour in the workplace. If not, why should we rest on that alone in this case? On the basis of my constituents’ experiences, I disagree with the argument that caste discrimination is a diminishing issue. Does the Minister not see that the provision of education without the provision of legal remedy is the worst possible solution, because it raises knowledge but does not afford consequences for discriminatory actions?
	The current laws do not provide sufficient protection for those who face caste discrimination. I draw the House’s attention to the judgment in the employment tribunal case of Naveed v. Chilli Pink in November 2011, which stated:
	“We consider in the light of the above provisions”—
	meaning section 9(5) of the Equality Act 2010—
	“that the Claimant’s complaint of discrimination based on his caste was doomed to fail… First, no order has yet been made extending section 9 of the Equality Act 2010 so as to provide for caste to amount of itself to an aspect of race.”
	The current situation is hostile to people who want to bring discrimination cases based on caste, and delay in that matter is serious.
	Hon. Members have already said that we need legislation so that some of those cases can move forward. There was an important case recently. I will not talk about it specifically, but the impediments faced by the person trying to bring the case to justice in terms of understanding among the police of the issues involved, access to legal advice and legal aid, and the personal costs in such circumstances, would put anybody off doing so.
	On whether a delay is justified, the EHRC’s position seems perverse—we heard earlier about its flip-flops on other issues. Yesterday, the policy statement on its website stated:
	“The Equality and Human Rights Commission supports the enactment of Section 9 (5) of the Equality Act 2010”,
	yet after being given this job by the Government, it recently stated:
	“What is clear is that caste is an extremely complex area,”.
	I would be interested to hear from the Government—perhaps the Minister will respond—whether the EHRC is researching this issue or looking at ways in which companies could move forward with rules on implementation should the Government enact this measure. Would it be possible for the EHRC to bring cases to court or support cases going through the courts?
	I tried to intervene earlier on the shadow Secretary of State because I want to be absolutely clear about the position of the Labour party on this issue, and specifically on whether it would like this measure on caste to be enacted. That was not clear from what the shadow Secretary of State said because he also talked about consultation and other things. It would be helpful to have clarification on that. I argue that whether or not the issue of caste is diminishing over time—that may or may not be true—is not material. Discrimination today deserves remedy today. It is no good telling people that we can sort the issue out and that their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be fine. We need a remedy today.

Chuka Umunna: rose—

Richard Fuller: I shall give way for clarification.

Chuka Umunna: I am conscious that I shall not get the chance to intervene again. The Labour party’s position is clear: more needs to be done and if we are to do more in legislation, further consultation must be carried out and the issue must be looked at properly. That is why we support the amendment so that it can go back to the Lords and we can have a discussion about how to get more consultation and how agreement can be reached. We are clear that more needs to be done and I remind the hon. Gentleman that we touched on this issue in the Equality Act 2010, although we did not bring into force by order the inclusion of caste in the definition of race in that Act. However, the fact that we addressed the issue in that Act shows we were alive to it. As he and I know, practically implementing such measures in a way that does not lead to a plethora of litigation is something of which we must all be mindful.

Richard Fuller: If I can hear that as a clarification—I do not wish to misstate what I heard—the position of the shadow Secretary of State and the Labour party is precisely the same as that of the Government on the key issue of whether it is abundantly clear that discrimination based on caste is wrong, and that we should enact the relevant measure today. The hon. Gentleman’s answer is “Let’s have more time; let’s do more consultation”, which is what I heard the Minister say. Perhaps I misheard.

Chuka Umunna: There are two points. First, if our position was the same as that of the Government we would reject the Lords amendments. Secondly, we are clear that more needs to be done and we must look at legislation and at what measures to introduce. I cannot be clearer than that for the hon. Gentleman.

Richard Fuller: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman could try a lot harder to be much clearer than that. I am not asking specifically about the amendment but about the provision in the Bill that the people who campaigned hard on this issue want to see. I believe their expectation is that the Labour party will support that provision, but I am hearing that it does not yet support it.

Simon Hughes: rose—

Richard Fuller: I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he understands the situation better.

Simon Hughes: I think I am right in saying that the Opposition’s position is not consistent. If the House upholds the Lords amendment and the Government are defeated, it does not go back to the Lords, because the position will have been agreed by both Houses.

Richard Fuller: I am now even more confused. I will have to read carefully the comments that have been made.
	For me, this is the clearest issue, and I need no further explanation. When it comes to tackling discrimination, I ask myself whether our enlightenment should be a condition of a quantum of discrimination. If so, how many career opportunities will be curtailed, and what amount of tears will be shed, as a result of harassment based on caste? Alternatively, is our enlightenment a condition of our understanding that all people deserve equality of opportunity, protected by law, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, faith and caste? For me, the answer is a clear one of principle. On those grounds, and on behalf of the hundreds of my constituents who have written to me to encourage me to make the case for equality of treatment under the law, I ask the Minister to reconsider her position and accept Lords amendment 37.

Sandra Osborne: I am in favour of the Lords amendments on the general duty in the Equality Act 2006. I am extremely disappointed with the view the Government have taken. They are seeking to repeal the general duty because they believe it serves no useful purpose and is superfluous to requirements, but that flies in the face of the views of equality and human rights experts; the EHRC, albeit latterly; service users and other stakeholders; and the Government’s analysis of the public consultation, which shows that the majority of respondents were opposed to repeal by a ratio of 6:1, and that they were concerned about losing the guiding principles and values set out in the general duty. If the Government believe that section 3 is so insignificant, why are they using valuable parliamentary time on it? That is particularly puzzling because the measure had all-party support during the passage of the Act.
	Section 3 mandates the EHRC to act with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of the various aspects of equality and human rights. The Government believe that it raises unrealistic expectations of what the EHRC can do. That view lacks not only ambition but principles. The values we enshrine in legislation send a message about the society to which we aspire. That requires not just a regulator but an organisational framework that can promote social change. As Age UK has said, the measure is about changing the culture, not just enforcing the rules.
	Society values an outward-looking EHRC monitoring what is happening in the UK rather than just reporting on itself. One example is the EHRC report on the shortcomings of care provided to elderly people. That not only brought about change in practice, but highlighted the rights of elderly people to protection and to respect of their human rights.
	Sir Bob Hepple has said that the Government are wrong to say that section 3 has no specific legal function. He states that the courts can use it as a helpful guide to the Act in the absence of a purpose clause, which the previous Government declined to insert in the Equality
	Act 2010. I sat on that Bill Committee, and remember the Lib Dems arguing for a purpose clause. However, the purpose clause was less important than it might have been because of the general duty set out in the 2006 Act. Sir Bob believes that the repeal of section 3 will leave equality law rudderless. I look forward to the Minister informing the House of the Government’s response to that view.
	Equality and human rights are inextricably linked. The point of the Equality Acts was to overcome the fragmentation of the different forms of discrimination. The EHRC needs the clear purpose provided in section 3 to guide it when deciding priorities, and to ensure that it approaches its different equality and human duties in an integrated and effective manner.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its sixteenth report, unanimously welcomed section 3, saying that it would serve in practice as a unifying factor in performance of the commission’s duties under sections 8 to 11, which the Minister outlined. I have already raised in previous debates the danger of jeopardising the EHCR’s UN A status accreditation, following the cuts of 76% of its budget and 62% of its staff since its inception. This repeal would be another nail in the coffin, and we know that the public sector equality duty is also under review. What does that say about the coalition’s commitment to equality? It is constantly chipping away at the most progressive and advanced legislation and policy, while undermining the ECHR in its infancy, when it was far too early to judge its effectiveness.
	In 2011, the Deputy Prime Minister told the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is now the Minister responsible, that he would resist the siren calls to water down the Equality Act by confirming that there would be no move to dilute its incredibly important protections or to enshrine and boost inequality in this country under the guise of dealing with unnecessary or intrusive regulation. That is exactly what is happening here today, so I do not expect to see any Liberal Democrats in the Aye Lobby on this issue today.

Khalid Mahmood: I rise to speak in favour of the Lords amendment on caste discrimination. The Minister said that we need more education and consultation. She said that she wants more evidence. We can educate and consult as much as we want, and if she wants evidence, she can come to my office or I can send her almost 1,000 letters that I have received from my constituents on this issue. This issue is close to the heart of most of the people in the United Kingdom who have been excluded from equality legislation. They ask why, when everybody else is entitled to the protection of that legislation, they are not. We want that issue to be addressed today.
	We have discussed the number of people who have come forward. Most of those affected cannot come forward—as the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) pointed out—or be taken seriously unless they are prepared to spend huge amounts of their personal money to get their cases heard.

Alok Sharma: On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman says that he has had 1,000 letters from his constituents. Have all those people specifically faced caste discrimination in this country?

Khalid Mahmood: Those people have asked me to take up this issue on their behalf, as their Member of Parliament, and that is what I am doing. It is not a matter of individual cases because—as I have said and as the hon. Gentleman needs to understand—one case is too many. In this day and age, and in this country, discrimination against anybody based on who their parents or grandparents were, where they came from or the family into which they were born is wrong, and we should not go down that route. We are here to protect those people who, through no fault of their own, were born of a particular lineage.
	There are cases of prejudice in my constituency and in Birmingham, but they cannot be dealt with because the law does not allow it. We want the Government to look at that issue and deal with it. The point is equality for all. This is not about discrimination against one group of people or one caste of people: it is about providing equality for all of us. If this argument had been accepted on the race relations legislation we introduced, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) would still be fighting his corner and trying to provide evidence of the number of people affected by that discrimination. We are going down a route that we have trodden long enough to understand that where there are issues of inequality and injustice we need to address them. There have been cases of people working below someone of a different caste, and believing that that they should not take them seriously. In the health service, there have been care providers who were looking after people of a lower caste but felt that they should not be doing that. We need to provide protection for those who are most vulnerable. They have suffered huge discrimination in their country of origin, and we should not perpetuate it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will be very brief, because other colleagues want to speak. I want to address the issue of caste, and to compliment the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on the way he spoke and for the logic he brought to his argument.
	Outside the House at lunch time today, there was a considerable demonstration in support of the Lords amendment on caste discrimination. The people on the demonstration came from different backgrounds and communities: Hindu communities, Sikh communities, Muslim communities, Christian communities and people who hold no particular faith. All were united in the view that if there is discrimination on any basis, it is wrong. While education may help people to get away from their discriminatory practices, it does not offer protection for the victims of that prejudice. It is therefore incumbent on this House to do something.
	Caste discrimination is not new. In south Asia, it is a massive issue, despite it being illegal within the terms of the Indian constitution written by Dr Ambedkar, and despite the many statements on the issue by Mahatma Gandhi. In this country, we have passed race relations legislation over many years. The arguments being used today—that there is not enough evidence, more needs to be gathered and there has to be consultation—are exactly the same arguments used against the first race relations law in this country: that we cannot legislate away prejudice and discrimination. No, we cannot. However, we can offer protection for the victims, we can
	offer legal redress, we can stop discrimination in the workplace. That is what the Lords amendment is designed to do.
	The history of the immediate issue is that an amendment to the Equality Bill, which came before the House in 2010, was agreed. Two amendments were tabled. One amendment, tabled by Rob Marris, the former MP for Wolverhampton South West, was in the form of the Lords amendment, but, unfortunately, was not accepted. Instead, the Government accepted an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), which stated that research should be undertaken. That research has been done. The requirement—it was not an option, but a requirement—placed on the Secretary of State was to introduce legislation if the research report showed that there was discrimination. The research shows clearly that there is discrimination on the basis of caste. I am therefore very disappointed with the Minister’s response and hope that she will think again. We can vote in favour of the Lords amendment today. That would change the law and be the end of the immediate debate. Caste discrimination would be illegal in the UK if we were to do that today. I very much hope we do.
	There are many organisations and people who say that we want more discussion and debate. We should, however, simply say that we think discrimination on any basis in our society is wrong. I am the chair of the trustees of the Dalit Solidarity Network and I have met many people who are victims of caste discrimination. On the square today were many people who had been through the most appalling situations—because they married into the upper-lower caste, got a job where their manager was a different caste or went for a promotion and did not get it. All kinds of things come out when these debates take place. I urge the House, if we think that discrimination is wrong, to legislate to say that it is wrong, and, if we want to outlaw it, to do it today.

John McDonnell: I want to comment briefly—it is important that we hear from other Members in the time available—on the two issues with which this debate started.
	I turn first to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said on Second Reading, the House of Lords has discovered that we are seeing the incremental abolition of the EHRC: cuts in its budget and staffing; the reduction of staff morale to an all-time low; the undermining of confidence in the organisation and its effectiveness among the wider community; and now—almost the killer blow—the undermining of its remit. That is what this is about, and it is a tragedy that it is a Liberal Democrat Minister bringing it about, because the Liberal Democrats supported us so effectively throughout the construction of the organisation.
	I turn briefly to caste. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, I moved an amendment to the Equality Act 2010. To be frank, it was not what we wanted. I supported the Rob Marris proposal to outlaw caste discrimination, but the two Front-Bench teams were anxious about outlawing it, so we worked cross-party. Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour Members sought a compromise agreement and we got it through the House. It was simple: if the
	Government were not convinced then that there was caste discrimination, they would undertake research, and the commitment was given—a cross-party promise—that if there was any evidence of discrimination, legislation would be forthcoming.
	That evidence has now been brought forward. It is not numerous, but, as hon. Members have said, if one person is discriminated against, we should ensure that it does not happen. So there might not be the quantum, but there is the qualitative evidence demonstrating that discrimination is taking place. I say to the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) that I have had cases in my constituency of appalling levels of discrimination, but people are terrified of coming forward, because, without protection in place, it would reinforce the discrimination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said.
	Today is about the fulfilment of a commitment, given on a cross-party basis, to legislate, if the evidence is there, to outlaw the discrimination. I am asking for that commitment to be upheld. My understanding of the position of the Labour Front-Bench team is straightforward. They support the outlawing of caste discrimination, which is why they support the Lords amendment. Detailed regulations would need to be introduced, as is always the case with anti-discrimination legislation, so I accept that further discussions would be needed, but let us establish the principle today.
	I am an old-fashioned Marxist, but my politics over the past 30 years have also been shaped by my Asian constituents, who have taught me a lot. They have taught me about the role of Ghandi. As mentioned earlier, in 1933, his 21-day fast was followed by a year-long campaign that resulted, in 1947, in an Indian constitution that outlawed caste discrimination. My Sikh constituents have also taught me a lot. In Sikhism, caste discrimination is outlawed. I will quote from the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book. It says:
	“do not consider social class or status; there are no classes or castes in the world hereafter”.
	To those Sikh organisations that have expressed consternation about some of the debate around caste, I say that what we have a chance to introduce today into British legislation is Sikh principles. The Sikh community in this country should be proud of that, and this House should be proud to say that we will outlaw caste discrimination once and for all. Let us do it on a cross-party basis.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I wish to inform the House that the knife will fall at 5.15 pm. I will call Mr Sharma next, then Mr Hughes, and I would like both to be mindful that if they wish to hear the Minister sum up, they must leave her time to do so.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate on the amendment to include caste in the Bill.
	Before we debate caste, we need to understand what the caste system means. It has been a deep-rooted tradition among Indian sub-continent communities for centuries. Various social reform movements of the last 1,000 years have declared discrimination on the basis of caste to be unacceptable. Many saints, rishis, social reformers and gurus have campaigned on the issue.
	Indeed, every page of the Sikh holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib—from which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) quoted—speaks, in one way or the other, against inequality in society. Many other faiths—Jainism, Buddhism—also speak against discrimination, highlighting caste before moving on to other inequalities in society.
	However, after centuries, we are still talking about the fact that there is a caste system in society. It might be alien to British society, but for people who have lived or come from there, it is in them, which is why, when India gained independence from Britain, it had to pass a law—it is in the constitution—saying that nobody can discriminate against another individual in employment, service delivery or, above all, social life. Why did India have to do that if educating people or persuading them to change their habits and practices was such a simple matter? It shows that even Dr Ambedkar, Pandit Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi and many other leading members of the Indian political movement accepted that doing so was not easy. That is why that law was introduced in the constitution.
	We need to understand what is in India, but we also need to understand how we are living in British society. I feel proud to represent the constituency of Ealing, Southall, in which Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Dalits—we are using that term now—and many other minorities from different parts of the world live. I feel proud to say in this place that we all live together peacefully, supporting each other. We have the Sikh procession, which all the communities join—I am sure that many Members who are present can speak about that as well. Whenever there are any issues in the community, we come together and address them.
	There has been a change in social life as well. People are entering inter-caste marriages and there is more closeness, but there is still an element when we are talking about employment and, in certain areas, service delivery as well. The hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) asked how many cases there were, and although sometimes we do not have the details of cases, we know that such practices are going on. In previous years, before 1976, there was indirect discrimination—that is, if it was not direct discrimination—and now there is still indirect discrimination.
	I would like to make one other point. We are not talking about something that is anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh or anti-Jainist or against any other high-class, high-caste community. This is not against them; it is introducing equality, so that where any individual or group feels that they are being discriminated against, they will have the legal remedy that we are introducing today.
	As I have said, there is not a major issue in my constituency. I feel proud that the Sikhs and Hindus there actively promote unity among all faiths. That is why we all meet together at the processions and at many other functions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is in his place, was in my constituency on Sunday when the Tamil new year was celebrated. Members of all the other religions and faith groups were present at those celebrations. There is not an issue in people’s social lives.
	We have heard suggestions about placing the value of education over the value of legislation in protecting individuals against caste discrimination. Of course education
	is key to changing attitudes and behaviour, but it is also necessary to reduce discrimination in the long term. Legislation is necessary to ensure that any victim of discrimination is protected, and to provide legal redress against discrimination. Adding “caste” alongside “race” in section 9 of the Equality Act 2010 will reaffirm our commitment to fight prejudice of any kind and to protect any individual who feels discriminated against. I can only hope that, as a testimony to the strong unity that I have witnessed in the Hindu and Sikh communities, the amendment will never have to be used in practice.

Simon Hughes: I say to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) that I, like many of our colleagues, support the retention of the general duty on equality. I understand the difficulty that she has in a coalition Government, in that she has to try to reflect different views, but I hope that, whatever decision is reached today, she will be able to persuade her colleagues that we should retain that duty rather than remove it.
	On the caste issue, I offered a suggestion earlier on the way forward. If the Government cannot accept the amendment to make caste a basis for discrimination—which I am persuaded that we ought to support—I hope that they will at least give Parliament an early opportunity to introduce secondary legislation to allow the provision to be added to legislation this year.

Jo Swinson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for what must be one of the shortest speeches of his life. With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the points that he and others have made, and I genuinely welcome the opportunity to do so.
	The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), began by accusing the Government of making a U-turn on lettings. He failed, however, to point out his own party’s U-turn on that issue. The proposals in the Government amendment for a redress scheme bear a striking similarity to an amendment that was tabled under the previous Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and supported by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. It would have introduced a redress scheme, but the Labour Government voted against it. That is why we are bringing forward the amendment today. It is a much more sensible provision than the one that was tabled in the other place, and it will give redress to consumers who are unfortunate enough to be the victims of letting and management agents who are not acting as they should.
	The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) asked where people should go for help in the absence of the EHRC helpline, and I am happy to draw her attention to the Equality Advisory Support Service that has been set up instead. Anyone who needs advice on these issues can ring the service on 0808 800 0082. That service is still available, although it is no longer supplied by the EHRC. It also works closely with the Commission to ensure that general information is passed back to inform the work of the service.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) made a powerful speech on the question of caste. He was right to highlight the complexity of the
	issue. He also asked for confirmation that the Government were not entirely closed to the idea of legislation. I am happy to give him that confirmation, as I said earlier, and indeed as has been said in the other place. The issue is about ensuring that we get the right response. We recognise that, as the EHRC gathers the evidence for the assessment it is undertaking this year, it might ultimately recommend a view that involves legislation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has tabled amendments to deal with various issues, particularly a code of practice for redress. The Government consultation will of course include consideration of how the redress mechanism should operate—
	Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 35.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 310, Noes 244.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 35 disagreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that time (Standing order No. 83F).
	Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 36.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 312, Noes 245.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 36 disagreed to.
	After Clause 56

Equality Act 2010: caste discrimination

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.—(Jo Swinson.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 307, Noes 243.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 37 disagreed to.

Clause 61
	 — 
	Civil liability for breach of health and safety duties

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 38.—(Jo Swinson.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 316, Noes 241.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 38 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) and (b) made to words so restored to the Bill.
	Lords amendment 40 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (h) made in lieu of Lords amendment 40.

Andrew George: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. An earlier point of order was made on the vote we hoped to have on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board—Lords amendment 41 and subsequent measures. A large number of hon. Members wish to ensure that this House, even though it has debated the matter under the Public Bodies Act 2011, expresses its view, rather than the decision being made in another place. The House—the democratic House—should have an opportunity in the Chamber to debate and make a decision on the abolition of the AWB. What opportunities do Members of the House have to express a view on that measure, rather than expressing a view on it when it is conglomerated with other amendments?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to delay the House, but I sympathise with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who feels strongly about the matter. I have sought advice from the Clerks, but I am not clear. I might be mistaken, but I understand that, should the Secretary of State or his representative on the Treasury Bench choose to raise the matter even in objection to Lords amendments, they would give the House an opportunity to express its view on the matter once and for all. It is annoying that we have no opportunity to debate the abolition of the AWB, but to have no opportunity even to vote on it is a double indignity. Can you advise the House on that, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This group of amendments also includes the first statutory regulation of the press since the late 17th century. For the House of Commons to be unable to vote specifically on such a major constitutional issue seems to me to deny our constituents their right to maintain freedom of speech in the country at large, and I hope that you will find some procedure—and the Clerks, in their wisdom, will find some precedent from the early days of Parliament—so that we may vote on this motion.

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Members for the point of order, but if you do not know of a precedent, Mr Rees-Mogg, it is probably not worth knowing. I am a servant of the House and I am directed by Standing Order No. 83F(6) to put a single question on all remaining Lords amendments once those to which a Minister has indicated an intention to disagree have been disposed of. Hon. Members may of course vote against that question, which will be to agree to several Lords amendments, including those to which they have drawn attention this evening.
	Lords amendments 1 to 34, 39 and 41 to 120 agreed to, with Queen’s Consent signified to amendment 71 and Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 64 to 66 and 104.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments ;
	That Stephen Crabb, Ian Murray, Jo Swinson, Mr Iain Wright and Paul Uppal be members of the Committee;
	That Jo Swinson be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Defamation Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Defamation Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12 June 2012 (Defamation Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

Defamation Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments
	After Clause 1

Arbitration Service for defamation and related civil claims against members of Independent Regulatory Board

Helen Grant: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
	Lords amendment 3, and amendment (a) thereto.
	Lords amendments 4 to 14.
	Lords amendment 15, and Government motion to disagree.
	Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.

Helen Grant: I am delighted that the Defamation Bill has returned to this House for us to consider the amendments made in the other place. Lords amendments 1, 15 and 16 constitute a partial enactment in statute of several recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson in his report on the culture, practices and ethics of the press. In particular, they create a press recognition body and require the creation of an arbitration service within recognised self-regulators for defamation and related civil claims. However, the requirements set out in these amendments for the press recognition body do not specify fully or clearly Lord Justice Leveson’s requirements for the self-regulator.

Paul Farrelly: Is the hon. Lady aware that these amendments have been overtaken by events and will not be pressed? We only have one hour in which to discuss all the amendments to the Defamation Bill? Before she launches into a long speech, will she take account of this and perhaps conclude her remarks relating to past events so that we can move on?

Helen Grant: I am very aware of time scales and if the hon. Gentleman could bear with me for 30 seconds longer, we might be able to move from this section to the next section.
	Moreover, the amendments were tabled at a time when cross-party talks were well under way to identify an agreed response to Leveson’s recommendations, including careful efforts to develop a set of workable criteria for the self-regulatory body. The amendments before us pre-empted the outcome of those talks. As the House will be aware, on 18 March cross-party talks were resolved successfully and a draft royal charter was agreed as a vehicle by which the recognition body should be set up. Detailed criteria by which self-regulators would be assessed were also agreed, and provisions to enact Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations on incentives in costs and exemplary damages have subsequently
	been included in the Crime and Courts Bill. Further, a “no change” clause has been included in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill as a safeguard against political intervention with the royal charter.
	I note that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has tabled a motion to agree with amendment 16, which introduces a requirement for an independent regulatory body to provide an arbitration service. I should like to reassure my hon. Friend and this House that the recognition criteria contained within the agreed draft royal charter include just that. To retain amendment 16 in the Bill, alongside the provisions within the royal charter, risks creating duplication and uncertainty around these requirements. The package of measures identified to enact Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations have cross-party support. As Lord Puttnam, who tabled these amendments, said:
	“Nothing in the world will delight me more than to see the Defamation Bill pass in its original form.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 880.]
	On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to the removal of Lords amendments 1, 15 and 16.
	I also ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment 2. A motion to that effect has been tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). The amendment concerns two distinct but related issues, which have already featured extensively in debates in both Houses during the passage of the Bill.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for giving way so early in her speech. She is presumably aware that the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill, on which I served, said that it favoured the approach that limits libel claims to situations where the corporation can prove the likelihood of substantial financial loss. Does she understand the reasons behind that, and can she give us any reassurances on that?

Helen Grant: I fully understand those reasons, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me and allow me to progress on to an explanation of those amendments, I hope that all will be revealed to him.
	The separate but related issues are whether there should be any restrictions on the rights of bodies corporate and other non-natural persons to bring an action in defamation and whether any non-natural person, which is performing a public function, should be prevented altogether from bringing a claim in relation to a statement concerning that function. In relation to the first issue, the amendment would mean that in order to bring a claim, a non-natural person would first have to obtain permission of the court. The court would be required to strike out any such application, unless the claimant could show that the publication of the statement complained of had caused, or was likely to cause, substantial financial loss. We believe that a permission stage for this purpose would create unnecessary duplication and additional costs for both parties.
	If the claimant was required to show substantial financial loss in order to satisfy the permission requirement, it would in effect mean that the claimant would satisfy the serious harm test introduced by clause 1. We have asked the civil procedure rules committee to consider rule changes to support a new early resolution procedure under which either party could apply at the outset of
	proceedings for the court to decide certain key issues, including whether the serious harm test is satisfied. The addition of a permission stage would therefore add little or nothing, because any case where the existence of serious harm was disputed could have that issue resolved at a very early stage in any event.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through this matter. The problem comes when a body—not a person—sends a threatening letter to an ordinary member of the public. Were I to go to a pop concert and be abused by security staff, and then tell my friends not to go to anything organised by those people, and if they then issued and served a writ, what chance would I have, with no money? Do I go straight to court and say, “They’ve shown no loss. Cut it out. They are not a person. They’ve got no feelings. They should not be allowed to do it.”?

Helen Grant: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will deal with that specific point. If I do not, I am sure he will come back.

Paul Farrelly: Will the Minister give way?

Helen Grant: I would like to make a little more progress.

Paul Farrelly: On that point?

Helen Grant: No, in a moment. I want to make some progress first.
	If the claimant succeeded at the permission stage, an early resolution hearing would often still be needed to enable the court to give a ruling on other key aspects of the claim—in particular, what the meaning of the words complained of was and whether they were statements of fact or opinion. This would mean that two sets of applications and hearings could often be needed, whereas under our proposals one would be sufficient. We have consistently made it clear that we are fully committed to taking action to help reduce the cost of defamation proceedings. The amendment would have precisely the opposite effect.
	In addition to the early resolution proposals, the Civil Justice Council has recently submitted to the Secretary of State its recommendations for cost protection in defamation and privacy proceedings. We are considering these carefully, with a view to introducing measures to give protection to parties with limited means when they are faced by an opponent with substantially greater resources. The amendment would undermine these initiatives and in many cases create unnecessary additional costs for both claimants and defendants.

Paul Farrelly: I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way. The amendment would be the only place in the Bill that provides for an early strike-out procedure. One of the problems has been that we have not seen the changes to the civil procedure rules throughout all this. How, then, can we be confident that what is promised will happen? In the case that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) will no doubt refer to in due course—of Peter Wilmshurst and NMT—an early strike-out procedure was necessary to prevent one company from abusing our libel laws. It was an example
	of libel tourism and all the worst excesses. The amendment would be the only place in the Bill providing for early strike-out.

Helen Grant: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the early resolution procedure will not fix the problem of the chilling effect and equality of arms that he is obviously concerned about. It is one of many measures and although I fully accept that the chilling effect is an issue, we also have to recognise that companies must have the right to protect their reputation. One therefore has to consider not just our request for an early resolution procedure, but the serious harm test and our proposals on cost protection and exemplary damages and costs. Altogether, all those things will, I hope, ensure that defamation proceedings are not manipulated by the party with considerably more financial needs against the party with less financials means.

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—I know she wants to get into the flow of her speech—but she misunderstands what clause 1 will do. A trial judge will be able to decide whether serious harm has been caused only at the final trial, after costs have been expended, as indicated by her hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The purpose of the clause introduced in the Lords is to allow the issue to be resolved at an early stage, before the defendant has faced too much cost and stress. What has she got against that?

Helen Grant: I have just explained that we have requested that an early resolution procedure should be looked into, and if we have an early resolution procedure, we do not need a permission stage. As I have explained, having a permission stage and an early resolution procedure would create far too much delay and cost, which is not what anyone wants. I would have thought that the shadow Minister, having been a solicitor, would know the effect that can have on claimants.

Edward Garnier: rose—

Sarah Wollaston: rose—

Helen Grant: I would also like to make the point—I can hear that there are concerns about this issue—that I am, however, aware of the strength of feeling that exists on this matter and on whether the Bill should contain a provision requiring non-natural persons trading for profit to show substantial financial loss. As we have made clear at earlier stages in the Bill, in order to satisfy the serious harm test, such bodies are likely in practice to have to show actual or likely financial loss anyway. However, I can confirm that we are prepared to consider actively that aspect of the Lords amendment further, and we will listen carefully to the views expressed in both Houses.

Edward Garnier: I listened with care to what the shadow Secretary of State said just now. Although it is true that clause 1 might be a retrospective application, the ordinary rules of strike-out and the ordinary rules of court that police abusive cases are not altered. If the court is faced with an abusive claim by a company, it will be dealt with. One does not need legislation to police the administration of such proceedings.

Helen Grant: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who makes a very good point indeed.

Peter Bottomley: Just two names: Peter Wilmshurst and the hundreds of thousands of pounds by a corrupt organisation, a company that had not allowed clinical research to be published properly; and Dr Simon Singh and the half a million pounds of costs over £5,000 of damages, and the court could not find a way of dismissing the case. That is the problem: such cases should not be allowed to start.

Helen Grant: As I intimated earlier, fixing the problem of fairness and creating the right balance between the claimant and defendant is not just about an early strike-out procedure. It is about a package of proposals that create fairness, are proportionate and allow for freedom of expression while protecting the reputations of individuals.

Simon Hughes: Before my hon. Friend leaves this issue and following the intervention by our hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), will she say whether the implication of what she said a few minutes ago is that she and the Government are willing to look at how we reflect the Lords amendment, but in a different way, to deal with corporate actions against vulnerable individuals, which is clearly a concern on both sides of the House?

Helen Grant: In relation to serious financial harm—that aspect and that aspect alone at the moment.
	I now turn to the second element of the Lords amendment. In the case of Derbyshire county council v. Times Newspapers, the House of Lords held that local authorities and government bodies were already prevented from bringing actions for defamation. The amendments seek to extend that principle and prevent claims by any non-natural person performing a public function. We do not consider that appropriate, as it would remove completely the right of a wide range of businesses and other organisations to protect their reputation. Although the provision focuses on criticisms in connection with the exercise of public functions, that criticism could of course have a wider impact on the reputation of the business more generally.
	Our view is that a rigid, restrictive statutory provision that would remove the right to claim from a wide range of bodies does not represent a proportionate approach. We consider it much better to allow the courts to develop the Derbyshire principle, as they consider appropriate and necessary in the light of individual cases. The removal of the amendment will not affect the Derbyshire principle, which will continue under the common law as it does now. I hope that the House will therefore agree to reject Lords amendment 2.
	I shall now turn to the remaining amendments, all of which are Government amendments that I ask the House to support. Amendments 3 to 7 relate to the defence of publication on a matter of public interest. Hon. Members will recall that, before the Bill left this House for the other place, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary and I gave a commitment that the Government would look again at clause 4. As a result of
	those considerations, we tabled amendments in the other place to recast the defence in a number of respects. Amendment 3 would replace the requirement for the defendant to show that he had acted responsibly in publishing the statement complained of with a requirement to show that he reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest. Considering whether the defendant has demonstrated his reasonable belief will involve a subjective element—namely, what the defendant believed at the time—and the objective element involving the question of whether that belief was reasonable for the defendant to hold.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has tabled an amendment proposing that the test should be whether the defendant had reasonably decided that publication was in the public interest. That point was debated in the other place, and I believe that the concern underlying his amendment might be that the current wording, “reasonably believed”, could make the test too subjective and result in arguments about the defendant’s motive. I can give him a clear reassurance that we do not consider these amendments to be justified. The defendant’s belief and his motive are not the same thing.
	The courts have made it clear in cases such as Flood that considerations about motive are usually irrelevant, so it is highly unlikely that they would entertain them if any such arguments were to arise. We are satisfied that our wording accurately captures the essence of the Flood judgment. In addition, the emphasis that the Government have placed—in debates, and which I reiterate today—on our intention to reflect Flood will leave the courts in no doubt that that is the case.
	Amendment 5 removes the list of factors that the clause previously invited the court to consider, which had led to concern being expressed in this House and elsewhere that a checklist approach would be taken by the courts. Amendment 7 requires the court, in considering whether a defendant’s belief is reasonable, to make such allowance for editorial discretion as it considers appropriate. Amendment 6 brings together two previous subsections of the clause reflecting the doctrine of reportage, without changing their effect. Amendment 4 requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances of a case when reaching a judgment. We believe that these amendments to clause 4 reflect the current law as articulated in the case of Flood, and that they will avoid an over-prescriptive approach while maintaining an appropriate balance between the interests of the claimant and those of the defendant.
	I shall move on to amendments 8 to 11, which make a number of changes to points of detail in respect of clause 5. Amendment 11 provides that the defence in the clause is defeated if the claimant shows that a website operator has acted with malice in respect of publishing a statement. This responds to concerns raised in the other place that situations could arise in which a website operator had acted maliciously—for example, by inciting the poster to make the posting, or by otherwise colluding with him. Although we believe that these situations are likely to be rare, we consider that in circumstances where a website operator acts maliciously, it is right that the defence should be defeated.
	Amendments 8 and 9 are technical amendments to the regulation-making powers and amendment 10 provides that regulations made under this clause will be subject
	to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament. This will of course ensure that these receive thorough parliamentary scrutiny.
	Amendment 12 relates to clause 6 and clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that the defence of qualified privilege for peer-reviewed statements in scientific or academic journals extends to journals that are published in electronic form.
	Amendment 13 extends the qualified privilege that is available under clause 7 in respect of fair and accurate copy of extracts or a summary of any document circulated to members of a listed company that relate to the appointment, resignation, retirement or dismissal of directors of the company to material relating to the appointment, resignation, retirement or dismissal of company auditors. This is a response to a concern raised in the other place and is in line with the more general Government policy to increase the transparency of interactions between companies and their auditors.
	Finally, amendment 14 amends clause 13 to enable the claimant who has been successful in a claim against the publisher of defamatory material to obtain an order for a secondary publisher, such as a bookseller, to stop distributing, selling or exhibiting materials containing the defamatory statement. Without such a provision, the effect of clause 10 might be that an action could not be brought against the secondary publisher who refused to remove the material from circulation even though they knew it was defamatory.
	I believe that the Government amendments made during the Bill’s passage through the other place assist in achieving the Government’s aim of striking the correct balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation. To conclude, I urge the House to support amendments 3 to 14 and to disagree with amendments 1, 2, 15 and 16.

Sadiq Khan: At the last general election, all three main parties were committed to reform our defamation laws. The Bill before us is a step forward in modernising our outdated defamation legislation. I shall shortly explain that it is not perfect—I believe that the House must decide on a number of crucial issues today—but it will lead to a much-needed updating of the law.
	I begin by thanking colleagues in the other place, including Lord Browne of Ladyton and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town, for championing improvements to the Bill, many of which are before us today, and Lord McNally for his handling of the Bill in the other place. A number of the points addressed in the amendments were raised by Labour in the House of Commons and in Committee in the Lords. We welcome the fact that the Government have taken them on board. I hope the House will endorse the improvements made to the provisions on public interest defence, the operators of websites and the electronic publication of peer-reviewed academic and science journals. All those will contribute to improving our defamation legislation.

Paul Farrelly: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I will give way once and then move on.

Paul Farrelly: I thank my right hon. Friend, who referred to the efforts of Baroness Hayter, particularly in respect of amendment 2 on non-natural persons or
	corporates. Will he also pay tribute to Lord Lester of Herne Hill of the Liberal Democrats and Lord Mawhinney of the Conservative party, as this truly was an amendment with cross-party support in the Lords?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I thank them later in my speech, but I will do it now. I thank Lord Lester for beginning the process of his private Member’s Bill, which followed the working party; and I thank Lord Mawhinney who chaired the excellent Joint Committee. I thank, too, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, ably chaired by another Conservative, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale).
	On the rules on a corporation’s ability to pursue defamation against an individual, however, the broad consensus breaks down. We were led to believe that this afternoon the Government would make concessions that would buy off the Liberal Democrats and us, but that did not happen. What the Minister has said is inadequate, and gives the lie to the word “concession”.
	The Government, and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), seek the House’s support for the overturning of Lords amendment 2. The amendment would bring equality to an area of law that is currently characterised by a large degree of inequality and that has had a chilling effect. Corporations have used their financial and legal might to intimidate their critics, which in many cases has led to their silence.
	Let me quote from the excellent report of the Joint Committee.
	“It is unacceptable that corporations are able to silence critical reporting by threatening or starting libel claims which they know the publisher cannot afford to defend and where there is no realistic prospect of serious financial loss. However, we do not believe that corporations should lose the right to sue for defamation altogether ...we favour the approach which limits libel claims to situations where the corporation can prove the likelihood of ‘substantial financial loss’.”
	Opposition Members support that statement.
	If the Government are successful today, they will undo a key improvement that was made in the other place, and this House will send the message that it is acceptable for corporations and institutions to silence their critics by using the threat of defamation in a battle that is inherently unequal. The Bill, as amended, will not prevent corporations from pursuing defamation actions against individuals; it merely introduces an initial hurdle before that stage is reached. A court must be satisfied that the likelihood of substantial financial harm has been proved before the action can proceed. That last point is important, as it relates to the size of the company and thus takes into account the particular challenges facing smaller businesses.
	The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) mentioned Dr Simon Singh, the science writer who led the libel reform campaign—a campaign for reform of our defamation law—after being sued for criticising the “bogus treatments” offered by some alternative medicine providers. He pointed out that if the Government were successful today, people such as him who made similar statements would still be given no protection. As Members may know, he was sued by the British Chiropractic Association, which is registered as a company.
	Dr Simon Singh said today:
	“My own case is not atypical. Lots of cases which people think are unfair and unreasonable have involved large companies suing individuals and corporations. The only clause in the Bill that would have helped me would have been if the British Chiropractic Association had had to demonstrate financial loss, because that would have been impossible for them. Corporations have huge influence on society and that’s why we need to tip the balance in favour of free speech.”

Simon Hughes: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am very sympathetic to the point he is making, and I certainly agree that the case of Dr Singh exemplifies the wrong that we seek to redress. It is simply a matter of the tactics that we use to achieve the result that we want. The Minister has expressed her willingness to consider tabling another amendment, and it seems to me that, in procedural terms, the only way in which we can do that is by ensuring that the Commons disagrees with the Lords so that negotiation can take place in the other place over the next few days.

Sadiq Khan: I am terribly sorry, but the Minister did not say that. She alluded to the civil procedure rules and to the Civil Justice Council, but she did not say that she would go away and table an amendment in lieu of the previously amended clause 2. If she had agreed to table, next week, a new amendment containing subsections (1), (2), (3), but not (4)—for the reasons that she articulated—that would be an argument in the right hon. Gentleman’s favour.
	This is the tactic. The right hon. Gentleman can vote with us. Members of his party, plus ours, defeat the Government, and we succeed in ensuring that the amended clause 2 is in the Bill.

Julian Huppert: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: I will in a moment, but I want to make some progress first. We have only an hour in which to debate the amendments because of the way in which the Government programmed the debate.
	Sadly, publishers are routinely threatened with libel proceedings by corporations who do not want negative coverage. The Lords amendment would make that more difficult.
	In addition, the Lords new clause aligns the law with the so-called Derbyshire principle. This principle rightly prevents public bodies from bringing defamation actions, and the amendment will mean that private companies delivering public functions are similarly restricted. In the original case of Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers in 1993, Lord Keith of Kinkel’s judgment makes clear the importance of “uninhibited public criticism” of democratically elected and public bodies. The principle is very important, because it means that local authorities—or, indeed, any public authority or organ of central or local government—should be open to uninhibited public criticism and therefore do not have the right to make a claim for defamation for damages.

Edward Garnier: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I will give two examples, and then I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I know he has an interest in this matter.
	Let us look at some of the consequences for the Ministry of Justice, the Minister’s Department. The Government amendment means that anyone, including a whistleblower, who wants to criticise the way a private company runs a prison using taxpayer money could face the threat of an action for damages, whereas he or she would not for criticising a public sector prison. This should be about protecting the reputation of the justice system, rather than big corporations. It would also mean that someone wanting to raise concerns about a danger to public safety caused by a private company managing, for example, medium risk offenders, once the Government’s plans for privatising our probation service have been implemented, would face the threat of defamation.
	Do the Government really want this unlevel playing field—which the Liberal Democrats will support in about 20 minutes? I remind the House that these are private companies undertaking public functions at taxpayer expense. At a time when the Government are handing over more and more of our public services to private and voluntary groups in education, health care and crime and justice, less and less of taxpayer spend will be subject to the uninhibited public criticism Lord Keith identified as so fundamental.

Edward Garnier: First, may I make it perfectly clear to the ignorant person who tweeted about me this afternoon that I have, in fact, declared my interest in relation to this matter on the amendment paper?
	Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Derbyshire county council case, while Lord Keith held that the council should not be able to sue, he confirmed that corporations should be able to sue to protect their trading reputation? The heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is that this is about inequality of arms. He thinks rich, very large and hugely well-resourced companies are bullying less resourced individuals, but the same criticism could be made of immensely rich private individuals who bring claims. Robert Maxwell used his millions—perhaps they were other people’s millions—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to catch my eye and make his own speech in due course, but we do not have all that long for this debate and we have got the gist of his point.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you for rescuing me from that speech, Mr Speaker.
	First, we are not saying corporations cannot sue at all. We are saying, “If you’ve suffered serious financial loss relative to the size of your company, you can sue.” Also, directors can sue, which is especially relevant to a small company suffering harm.
	All in all, we believe that the provisions in Lords amendment 2 are measured and sensible, and modernise our existing defamation laws in a proportionate manner. They enjoy wide support, too. They are supported by the Libel Reform Campaign, the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Joint
	Committee on the draft Bill, chaired, as we have been reminded, by former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Lord Mawhinney.

Paul Farrelly: The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) suggested in his intervention that the Government might make some changes in the Lords and gave the Minister the opportunity to intervene. Will my right hon. Friend invite the Minister to intervene, to make clear what might happen in the Lords if this measure is not pressed to a vote now?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I think it is good manners and courtesy to take an intervention when someone on the Front Bench tries to make one, so if the Minister seeks to intervene I shall allow her to do so.

Peter Bottomley: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	I was talking about the huge amount of support for Lords amendment 2. It should also be supported by the Liberal Democrats, whose manifesto stated that they sought defamation reform that would require
	“corporations to show damage and prove malice or recklessness”.
	That is a far higher threshold than that in Lords amendment 2. If the Liberal Democrats stick to their manifesto and their principles and vote with us this evening, we can defeat this attempt to stifle free speech. I urge them and others to vote with us to support the retention of this crucial clause in the Bill.
	I like to keep my promises, so I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley).

Peter Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman might get as far as I did by doing that.
	Atos do disability checks for the Government and a number of disability claimants had a forum where they put their comments about that. Atos, I understand, sent a legal letter that closed it down because the threat was sufficient. The Government could not have done that and Atos should not, so the public function issue matters. There are plenty of other ways in which large corporations can defend their reputation, but using money and legal threats is not one of them.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman might have been in the House in 1993, when Lord Keith made his judgment, but the numbers of private companies undertaking public functions in ’93 were far fewer than they are in 2013. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have huge respect for him, but if his party has its way, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, even more public services will be tendered and will be run by private companies.
	Large elements of the Bill show how Parliament should legislate. Political consensus on the overarching need to reform followed by detailed, expert debate on the substance in both Houses, all informed by a dedicated set of campaigners and non-governmental organisations, has helped to turn the original substandard Bill to a better set of proposals. I hope that today the House will agree with us one more time on the importance of
	retaining the key changes made to the Bill in the Lords. Do you know what? Defamation Bills do not come around very often—this is only the third since 1853. We must grasp the opportunity and deliver the modern, updated defamation laws warranted by our tradition of open and free speech.

Edward Garnier: There have been three defamation Bills in my lifetime; I do not know whether that helps the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—

Sadiq Khan: It shows how old you are.

Edward Garnier: It does, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I point out that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was born not in 1853 but, if memory serves me, in 1952?

Edward Garnier: On 26 October, and I share a birthday with President Mitterrand and Hillary Clinton. Let us move on, however.
	I have already declared my interest, so I hope I do not have to do so again. I want to say that this is not a question of being right or wrong. I am not saying that I am right, that my hon. Friend the Minister is right or that the right hon. Member for Tooting is wrong, but that this is a matter of judgment and opinion. We are perfectly entitled to have different views about how best to order the law on defamation.
	It so happens that the right hon. Gentleman and I take a different view on Lords amendment 2 on non-natural persons. I happen to think that Lord Bingham was right in the Jameel case in 2007 to make it quite clear that he thought it was perfectly proper and right for corporations to be able to bring actions for libel without proof of special damage—without having to show money loss. I will not recite all that he said, as there is not enough time, but it is worth bearing it in mind when some of the more hyperbolic accusations are traded about companies that bring actions for libel to terrorise or use their financial muscle to inhibit the defence of those actions or to inhibit free speech.

Julian Huppert: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a fundamental difference between non-natural persons and natural persons in terms of aspects to do with feelings, for example? Corporations of any size cannot have feelings that can hurt by defamatory action; there is a fundamental difference that the law should reflect.

Edward Garnier: That is not only fundamental; it is highly uncontroversial. Human beings can get damages for hurt to their feelings; companies cannot. One cannot libel a company by accusing it, for example, of adultery, whereas one can so libel an individual. There are plenty of obvious and not very surprising differences between the law relating to individuals and the law relating to companies, but there are examples of things which affect companies’ trading reputations, which should be susceptible to protection.
	We should also bear it in mind that there are different types of company. There are not-for-profit companies which are not in the business of making money and which, if they were libelled, would not lose money. It may well be said in response to me that the amendment deals with that. They would get permission from the court to bring that action, but that just creates another hurdle, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), made clear.

Peter Bottomley: I would be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend could advise briefly on two points. First, at which stage should the courts have said, “We are not going to go further with the claim against Dr Simon Singh or against Dr Peter Wilmshurst”? Secondly, with reference to loss, in 1950 two doctors said that tobacco is very bad for people’s health and asbestos is very bad for people’s lungs. That was not the general view. It was an insight, and the companies involved in selling tobacco and selling asbestos could have sued for loss. That should have been struck out as well. There should be no libel for such cases. How would my hon. and learned Friend stop that kind of thing without the proposed new clause?

Edward Garnier: I shall not unwind the case of Singh or the Wilmshurst case; they have been before the courts and have been dealt with. As it happens, the case of Simon Singh became controversial because it was an argument about whether the words complained of constituted allegations of fact or whether they were capable of constituting comment. That is the point on which it went to the Court of Appeal.
	There was an action in South Africa brought by a tobacco company which sued and recovered damages on the allegation that its products promoted cancer. Things change. That is the advantage of having an organic system of law which enables the courts to deal with evidence and reach conclusions about whether a company or anyone else has been attacked inappropriately.
	As I was saying to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), it is not all that hard to think of statements which seriously injure the general commercial reputation of trading and charitable organisations. An arms company—

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Edward Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, this debate stops at 7.13 pm.
	Arms companies can be accused of bribing foreign officials. Oil companies can be accused of damaging the environment. International humanitarian agencies can be accused of wrongfully succumbing to Government pressure. Retailers can be accused of exploiting child labour, and so on. As the right hon. Member for Tooting said, the directors or the leading members of those companies may also have a parallel course of action, but the company itself should not be shut out from pursuing a course of action if that is available to it.
	The good name of a company, as that of an individual, is a thing of value. A damaging libel may lower its standing in the eyes of the public and even of its own staff and make people less ready to deal with it and less
	willing or less proud to work for it. If that were not so, corporations would not go to the lengths they do to protect and burnish their corporate images. There is nothing repugnant in the notion that this is a value which the law should protect, and it is not an adequate answer that the corporation can itself seek to answer the defamatory statement through press releases or public statements, as protestations of innocence by the impugned party necessarily carry less weight with the public than the prompt issue of proceedings which culminate in a favourable verdict by a judge or a jury.
	Furthermore, why should one have to accept that a publication, if truly damaging to a corporation’s commercial reputation, will result in provable financial loss, since the more prompt and public a company’s issuing of proceedings, and the more diligent its pursuit of a claim, the less the chance that financial loss will actually accrue? It may be argued against me that all these matters will be dealt with in the permission hearing, but when is the permission hearing to take place? Will the corporation have to wait right until the end of the limitation period? Will it have to wait for weeks and weeks while the next set of accounts comes out, so that it can work out whether financial loss has occurred as a consequence of the libel? There might be any number of causes of a company suffering an economic downturn, particularly in a recession.
	I return to the point I made about not-for-profit companies and charities.

Julian Huppert: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman seen that the amendment that I hope the Government will bring forward specifically refers to trading-for-profit organisations, as the Joint Committee recommended? It specifically excludes charities.

Edward Garnier: I am discussing the amendment to the Bill, not the one somewhere else that the hon. Gentleman was happy to talk about.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister in relation to subsection (4) of the new clause proposed in Lords amendment 2. It seems to me that procedurally we can only deal with the amendment as one; we cannot chop and change it. Subsection (4) states:
	“Non-natural persons performing a public function do not have an action in defamation in relation to a statement concerning that function.”
	It seems to me that the common law, as expressed through Derbyshire, is there. If we legislate, we will create sclerosis. Indeed, I think that there are some disadvantages in legislating to put the Reynolds defence into statute. We will no doubt make lots of work for our learned friends, but we will make the process of amending the law of libel, particularly in relation to public interest statements, all the more difficult as we lock it down into statute.
	I urge the House to think carefully before deciding on whether to agree to their lordships’ amendment. I urge Members to give my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government the time and space to get this right with mature consideration and not to be seduced by the siren calls of the pressure groups, no matter how well motivated they might be, into producing what would be a deleterious and damaging end to this affair.

Paul Farrelly: I wish to speak briefly to Lords amendment 2, which would be a major change to the Bill, and to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I will curtail my remarks, because I want to give other Members the opportunity to speak.
	Lords amendment 2 would be a major change. The issue here is not just about big corporations wanting to bully and intimidate the little people, as McDonalds did years ago, simply because they can. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report highlighted a more recent case of almost flagrant abuse of our libel laws by a large corporation: Tesco’s libel action against The Guardian—some people’s favourite paper, and some people’s hate paper—in 2008. We can generalise from that case.
	It has recently been in vogue to condemn aggressive and widespread tax avoidance, and that was what The Guardian story was all about. Itmade a mistake in that story and referred to the wrong tax. It turned out that Tesco was avoiding not only the wrong tax but the tax that it said it was not avoiding. The Guardian, as any newspaper would, apologised, made a clarification and offers of amends and ensured that it used all the procedures of the law, as set down the last time this House looked at reform of libel law, but Tesco was just not interested.
	The reason Tesco turned everything down, stalled for time and racked up the costs was not just because it could, but because it, like so many corporations, wanted to chill. It wanted to take the newspaper and its journalists out of the game. It wanted to send a message. The Guardian—it could have been any newspaper—faced a bill of up to £5 million if the case went all the way to the House of Lords, or now to the Supreme Court, because the issue in libel is cost, not damages, so it settled for a nominal sum. The costs were massive.
	Lords amendment 2 would have cross-party support not only in the Lords but here, if Members had a free vote. The only people who oppose it are those organisations that like to chill and those firms that make massive amounts of money out of the libel industry. The amendment would not stop companies suing; it just asks that they demonstrate significant damage when they can fight back by other means.
	The Lords amendment also asks that the court approve a writ. Currently people can just go to court, a writ is rubber-stamped and then one is obliged to spend one’s time and money fighting it. The refusal of Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American, to go thorough that procedure led to the Americans introducing their laws to stop our libel judgments being enforced in the United States.

Edward Garnier: I ask the hon. Gentleman to have a look at new clause 2(3), which says:
	“The court must strike out an application under subsection (2) unless the body corporate can show that the publication of the words or matters complained of has caused, or is likely to cause, substantial financial loss”.
	What happens to a charity or non-profit-making company that is not in the business of making a financial gain or a financial loss if it is defamed? The case would have to be struck out under the clause.

Paul Farrelly: The hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten that the proposal does not apply to non-profit-making organisations.
	This is the only part of the Bill, until we see the civil procedure rules, that provides for early strike-out. That would have helped Peter Wilmshurst, sued by NMT, who could not ultimately pay the bills that he had racked up, leaving aside the worry for his family in putting everything on the line. The amendment would get around the distinction drawn in the Simon Singh case—the artificial discrimination between corporate bodies and non-incorporated bodies that allowed the British Chiropractic Association to sue him in the first instance.
	The Lords amendment is sensible and proportionate. It would not prevent individuals in companies, particularly private companies, from suing if they felt defamed by an article that attacked their company. It would also, as the hon. Member for Worthing West said, extend the Derbyshire principle to contracted-out firms where they are providing public functions—Atos, for example. In short, it keeps up with the times.
	I put my name to Lords amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Worthing West, partly, again, on the grounds of reducing costs. Beliefs are very subjective and decisions are more objective if the courts interpret them sensibly. I also wanted to tease out from the Government why, having rejected all our concerns in the Bill Committee about having another tick list, as the Reynolds defence had proved so costly, they had so radically changed their mind. The Minister has not elucidated that. However, by virtue of the fact that the matter was uncontested in the Lords, I am happy that a court can consider all circumstances of the case. I hope that in a spirit of cross-party truce, my colleague the hon. Member for Worthing West will speak to his amendment.

Peter Bottomley: I want to make two points that were not those I intended to make originally. My third point is that I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) almost completely about this, so I will not put those arguments.
	Tesco Lotus in Thailand sued a journalist for £1.9 million—perhaps it was dollars or something, but it was quite a lot—because it wanted an apology, and it eventually got an agreement to have a clarification of the words on an inside page. It later sued a former MP, a business journalist, in the same way.
	Corporations such as Tesco, whether in joint venture overseas or in this country, should not be able to choose to sue an individual journalist; it simply should not happen. They have plenty of power, plenty of weight, plenty of thick skin and an umbrella, and they should not be able to do it.
	I would have stopped corporations suing for libel at all.
	I believe strongly that public functions should fall under the Derbyshire principle, irrespective of whether we want private businesses doing public jobs. Earlier I gave the example of a security guard at a pop festival. I regard security as a public function even if it is privately hired, and such people should not be able to sue for libel. The court should not issue the writ; it should not be allowed.
	Let me make a point on behalf of Colin Channon, the editor of my local newspaper, the Worthing Herald, who says that were he to report that a group of unauthorised campers was in the constituency and he were then sued, he would have to pay £3,000 for initial advice before he got to a panel. We are in danger of our local newspapers being threatened.
	As for people conspiring to say that the police would not confirm whether someone had been arrested, the idea that someone could sue for a libel that claimed they had been arrested but which had not been confirmed, even though true, makes the issue even worse. I am unhappy with most of this but I am particularly unhappy that the Government have not yet found a way of having new clause 2, in effect, there for all of us.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), with whom I have had many promising discussions on the issue. I am delighted that the Bill is back in the Commons. There was a period when, due to the actions of the Labour peer Lord Puttnam, there was a risk. I am glad that that risk did not eventualise and that it turned out not to be a problem.
	This Bill will make a significant change to the costs of libel and to free speech and it will reduce libel tourism. I am particularly pleased about clause 6, which provides specific protection for peer-reviewed academic and scientific publications. That is something that I value greatly and I am delighted that we will be able to make those protections, because we have heard of too many cases of learned journals being silenced.
	The issue remains, however, of corporations and non-natural persons. As I argued earlier, they are different. They do not have feelings. They are categorically separate and there should be different rules for what happens when they wish to bring libel actions. Significantly, we have heard that they can abuse power, as in the cases of Peter Wilmshurst and Simon Singh. I was going to talk more about them, but a number of speeches have covered them.
	There is, largely, cross-party agreement, with the notable exception of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier).

Edward Garnier: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that “a body corporate” in subsection (1)(a) of the new clause proposed by Lords amendment 2 does not restrict it to money-making corporations?

Julian Huppert: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. I understand that that is the intention and that is what was recommended. I eagerly anticipate a Government amendment and hope that it will address that issue. None of us wants to put constraints on charities. This relates to profitable or profit-making organisations, or at least those that are trying to make a profit.
	I heard the Minister make a commitment to actively consider such amendments. My understanding is—I am still new to parliamentary procedure—that that is as far as a Minister is able to go at this stage. I would be grateful if it was not her intention to set high expectations for such an amendment being tabled in the Lords. She is
	welcome to clarify the issue now; otherwise, I am very happy with what she said and look forward to the amendment.
	We will get cross-party agreement on corporations having to prove that they have suffered serious financial harm. Simon Singh has correctly said that that would have saved him. Such a provision is still missing from the Bill, but I believe that the Government have now said that they will address it. I trust the Government on that and I look forward to the amendment and to the Bill finally changing.
	As John Kampfner, the former chief executive of Index on Censorship, said:
	“When we launched the Libel Reform Campaign in 2009, only the Liberal Democrats backed change. Now the cause has cross party support.”
	I look forward to seeing this Bill become an Act.
	One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
	Question agreed to.
	Lords amendment 1 accordingly disagreed to.
	The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Mrs Grant.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 298, Noes 230.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments 15 and 16 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments 3, (a), and 4 to 14 agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 2, 15 and 16;
	That Mr David Evennett, Robert Flello, Mrs Helen Grant, Dr Julian Huppert and Mr Andy Slaughter be members of the Committee;
	That Mrs Helen Grant be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee.
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.
	Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
	That, at this day’s sitting, the motions in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley relating to the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (Joint Committee) and the Sittings of the House (Wednesday 17 April), may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Mr Syms)
	Question agreed to.

Groceries code adjudicator Bill [Lords] (programme) (No.4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 19 November 2012 (Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords] (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 23
	 — 
	Orders

Jo Swinson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 14A.
	Hon. Members may be surprised to see the return of a Bill to which we bade such a fond farewell not very long ago. It returns to the House for two reasons. First, we had such an enjoyable time during its passage through the Commons that we could not resist one further go, but secondly—and by far the most important reason—we tabled this amendment in the other place in response to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its sixteenth report of the Session.
	As hon. Members will recall from our discussions, the adjudicator must consult on her guidance. This will allow her to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about the maximum level of the fine or the basis for determining that amount. The Secretary of State will then need to lay an order before Parliament setting this maximum level or the method for determining it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended that such an order be subject to an affirmative resolution rather than the negative procedure provided for in the Bill when it left the Commons.
	There are already safeguards around the use of the power. It can be exercised only after a recommendation from the independent adjudicator, based on her consultation, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recognised that this would usefully serve to inform the exercise of the power by the Secretary of State. However, the Committee advised that as the upper limit of the penalty is not on the face of the Bill, the power to fix those limits should be subject to a significant level of parliamentary scrutiny. This is in line with its recommendations in other cases in which the maximum penalty is not stated on the face of the Bill.
	We think that the Committee’s comments are reasonable and we are happy to heed the voice of Parliament on this issue. Our amendment provides only that the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, ensuring that Parliament will be able to scrutinise and positively approve the order. I trust that this increased level of scrutiny will be to the satisfaction of hon. Members, and I urge them to support this minor amendment to what I think we all agree is an excellent Bill.

Ian Murray: It is strange that an hour has been allocated for this debate when it is obvious that it will take only a few moments. Given that the Agricultural Wages Board has been abolished by the unelected House of Lords and this House was not able to have a debate on that, the timetable today is a bit disappointing.
	For my sins, I have often said in Delegated Legislation Committees in the past few weeks that I agree with the Minister, and this is another demonstration of the fact
	that when the Government do the right thing, we will agree with them. In this case, the Minister is certainly doing the right thing.
	It is worth returning to the introduction of this Bill. It was a fairly ordinary Bill to start with, but it was strengthened substantially in the other place with the addition that trade associations and third parties could seek redress from the adjudicator. Importantly, on Second Reading in this House, we had a robust debate on whether fines should be included in the Bill. We disagreed on that point, and the Minister vehemently and robustly defended their omission. We are delighted that provisions on fines were added in Committee, which made the Bill all the better.
	The amendment we are considering is significant because it shows the power of this House. The Select Committee has had a pre-appointment hearing for the adjudicator, and we congratulate her on her appointment. She will be a very good adjudicator and we look forward to her getting stuck into some of the important work that has to be done on this issue. We have also had a lot of cross-party consensus on the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee. It is a testament to the power of the Select Committees and the Committee system—not to mention the other place—that we started with a fairly weak Bill, but it will leave this House today much stronger.
	Many people deserve credit for that improvement. As well as the Minister, they include the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) who is in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) who I do not see in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who was my wing person in Committee.
	We do not disagree with the Lords and will be agreeing with the Minister in this particular case, but I will just make this point. We had arguments in Committee about ensuring that the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in particular had time to look at these issues, and the Minister defended robustly the other Committees of this House. Now that provisions on fines are in the Bill, and the Secretary of State will be putting forward an order to determine their amount, it is right that that statutory instrument should be before the House for affirmative resolution. We can then debate it to ensure that it is in the interests not just of the suppliers covered by the groceries code adjudicator, but businesses and supermarkets too.

James Paice: I will make a brief contribution because, like the Minister, I am happy to support the Lords amendment. I just wanted to make the point that, in considering the fines structure and the levels at which they will need to be set, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State will consider the magnitude of the businesses involved. A fine that to most people would seem substantial of perhaps a few thousand pounds, would be totally insignificant—a few minutes’ trading—to a major supermarket.
	I do not pretend to have the answers. This is a subject on which I have wrestled in my own mind and discussed with the adjudicator, because it will be extremely difficult. That is one reason I was always a bit dubious about the
	need for fines—the reputational issue will be far more valuable. It is clear to me that if a fine is to be levied, it will have to be at a level that is likely to lead to the behavioural change of the relevant supermarket that all of us who support the Bill desire to see. That means it will be very significant. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Minister comes forward with figures, there will be accusations that they are completely disproportionate to the issues. The proportion, however, is to do not just with the issue, but with the scale of the business and the behavioural change we want to see—clearly, that is not going to happen unless the business has been in serious breach of the code.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to make the point to my hon. Friend, and to hon. Members in all parts of the House, that when the statutory instrument comes back to the House we will have to consider this wider issue. It is not simply a penalty for a small offence, but something we need to ensure is a genuine penalty for breach of the code and a deterrent. It will therefore have to be of a very large magnitude indeed.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I welcome the Lords amendment and do not oppose it. I am sure that that will be a great relief to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I congratulate on all the work she has done on the Bill.
	The key point addressed by the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire is that the order, when it is brought forward, is couched in a manner that has the impact we all want. Whether fines will be a set figure or a proportion of turnover was debated at some length in Committee. A proportion of turnover for Tesco as opposed to, say, Waitrose, is significant. Certainly, in other areas of competition law this appears to be the case. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look at a proportion of turnover as an alternative to setting an absolute amount in the order. I congratulate the Government on accepting the need to provide for fines in the Bill. The fact that significant changes have been made shows the benefit of debate and scrutiny in this place. Without question, the Bill improved over time.
	I echo the words of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I sat through the previous debate on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and made a point of order about how we had not had an opportunity to debate the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. The groceries code adjudicator is being put in place to address some of the pressures on primary producers. It is a great pity, however, that we were not given the acres of time we have now—to debate this relatively minor issue—in order to debate an issue that will have a significant impact on the future of agriculture and agricultural workers in this country. The risk that this might become a race to the bottom or that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority might be the only body able effectively to regulate and protect workers in the agricultural sector is one that the House ought not to take. I hope that the House will reflect on the fact that the undemocratic House has introduced a measure without the democratic Chamber having an opportunity to debate it. We must ensure that such a thing never happens again. There has been no debate or vote in this House on an issue of great significance.
	I shall return to the primary purpose of the amendment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. This is a welcome change and we look forward to the order being brought forward as quickly as possible, so that when the adjudicator begins her job, in the coming few weeks I hope, we will see this measure introduced effectively and a proactive adjudicator seeking vigorously to enforce the groceries code.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to throw you by standing so late. I had not intended to speak.
	I welcome the amendment from the other place and the consideration given to the Bill and the great input from both Houses. It has undoubtedly benefitted from it. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I, too, truly wish that we had also availed ourselves of the opportunity to debate the Agricultural Wages Board, on which we have had no vote or debate in the Chamber. In effect, it has today been abolished by an unelected Chamber. While welcoming the amendment and the thorough scrutiny given to the Bill now before us, I think that the House should reflect on earlier business, when we effectively bypassed this House entirely. It is a sad day for our democracy.

Neil Parish: I rise to support other Members who have spoken, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who has supported the Bill throughout and did a great job as Minister. I also echo what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said about the Bill, although I do not necessarily welcome his comments about the Agricultural Wages Board—but I will not go into that debate.
	I congratulate the Minister on listening throughout this whole process, including in Committee, in order to improve the Bill. I also thank the shadow Minister for his co-operation. The Committee and the House have worked extremely well to bring forward this Bill.
	I again echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire, who said we have to consider a level of fine that is commensurate with the size of the company committing the felony. We have to be clear about that. It will matter, because this is not only about naming and shaming. If the public see that a large fine has been imposed on a large supermarket in this country, they will start to realise what kind of bad practices have been carried out. Many of our producers, farmers and growers have suffered so much abuse over the years, especially when it comes to perishable goods, whereby supermarkets and others have suddenly decided that they have enough strawberries or whatever and will not buy those crops, or they find some other reason not to buy them. Those crops then have to be destroyed, at a loss to the farmer or grower. That is an abuse by supermarkets and others of their power. We therefore very much welcome the Bill and look forward to seeing what level of fine will be imposed on the companies that abuse their powers.
	I am hopeful that the fact that the groceries code adjudicator is in place will stop most of the abuses that have been committed. If that is what having the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill achieves, that is far better than
	fining lots of companies. We want to see bad practice ruled out and good practice put in its place. I am hopeful that that is exactly what the Bill will do. I therefore very much welcome the Lords amendment, but I also welcome the fact that the Bill has made such quick progress through the Lords to come back here to the Commons. I therefore hope we can get it on the statute book as quickly as possible.

Jo Swinson: I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I want to respond to the points raised in this debate.
	The right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) raised a perfectly fair point about the fines structure and whether it should take into account the size of the business being fined, in order to drive its behaviour. Let me reassure him that the adjudicator will have to undertake a consultation on her guidance on the maximum. As my hon. Friends who served on the Committee have said, we discussed that in depth in Committee, because she will want to spend a little time ensuring that she gets that right. I am sure that hon. Members will be interested in engaging with that consultation and giving their views on it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about when the adjudicator begins her role. I am pleased to say that, as adjudicator-designate, she is currently working one day a week, enabling her to build some of the stakeholder relations that will be so crucial. Once the Bill is commenced and becomes an Act, she will have her full suite of powers and be working three days a week.
	I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for his kind comments. Indeed, this is an appropriate point to thank a few Members for the work they have done to get us to this position. They include my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, who has campaigned for this measure for over a decade, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who built a lot of momentum on the issue through his private Member’s Bill, and the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who have also campaigned on the issue and who worked hard with the Government to help to improve the Bill. I also thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), along with the Chairs of the Bill Committee, the hon. Members for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams), as well as the members of the Committee, the Whips and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
	Together, we have managed to create an adjudicator with the teeth to ensure that retailers treat their direct suppliers fairly and lawfully. That is a legacy of which we can be proud. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Lords amendment 14A agreed to.

Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (Joint Committee)

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of Mr Christopher Chope and others.

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 15 January 2013, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill presented to both Houses on 22 November 2012 (Cm 8499), and that the Committee should report by 31 October 2013.
	That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords;
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That Mr Crispin Blunt, Steve Brine, Lorely Burt, Mr Nick Gibb, Sir Alan Meale and Derek Twigg be members of the Committee.
	The motion arises from the statement made on 22 November last year by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in response to a judgment in the European Court of Human Rights. That judgment required the Government to bring forward legislative proposals on prisoner voting for Parliament to consider. The Justice Secretary published the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill and proposed that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. In this motion today, the Government are seeking the establishment of a Joint Committee to consider that draft legislation.
	The Justice Secretary made it clear in November that although Ministers might have strong personal views on this matter, the Government are under an international law obligation to implement the Court’s judgment. Equally, however, the Justice Secretary was clear that Parliament is sovereign, a fact recognised explicitly by the Human Rights Act 1998, and the current law passed by Parliament will remain in force unless and until it is changed.
	The Government believe that it is right that Parliament should be given the opportunity fully to consider the difficult and contentious issue of prisoner voting. That is why we brought forward draft legislative proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny. We consider that to be the most appropriate course of action, given the importance of the issue and the strong views that exist across both Houses. It will be for Parliament to scrutinise the legislation, which contains a number of options reflecting the spectrum of views that we know exist on this question. The Lords started the process of establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny in January. Following discussions through the usual channels, the Government tabled a motion on 1 March to nominate the Commons Members to serve on the Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and others subsequently tabled an amendment, which has necessitated the debate we are having today. I
	understand the purpose behind the amendment. Following the implementation of the Wright report, we now elect the Chairs of most Select Committees, and the membership of those Committees is determined by elections within the political parties. It might therefore be argued that it would be in the spirit of the Wright report for the membership of pre-legislative Committees similarly to be elected by the House and by the parties, rather than being determined by the Government and through the usual channels.
	However, there are strong arguments of principle and of practicality against such a move. As a matter of principle, joint pre-legislative Committees need to be carefully balanced to ensure that they properly reflect all shades of interest and opinion across both Houses of Parliament. To ensure that scrutiny is rigorous, that means including critics of the legislation as well as its supporters. With the best will in the world, a process of election is unlikely to achieve that balance. If a majority of the House has a prior view on a particular piece of legislation, that view is likely to be reflected in the composition of any Committee appointed following elections.

Stephen McCabe: I am just wondering whether we could save some time tonight. If that is the right hon. Gentleman’s position, will he tell us which members of the Committee will be in favour of the proposal and which will be opposed to it, under the balanced arrangements that he has arrived at?

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has quite understood the character of the Bill. It offers options, and to that extent—

Stephen McCabe: I was just following up on what the right hon. Gentleman was saying.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, and for the benefit of the House and the hon. Gentleman I am attempting to explain that acceptance of the amendment to tonight’s motion might be inferred as establishing a point of principle. I am explaining that there are objections in principle to that approach to joint pre-legislative Committees.
	The point that I was making was that if a majority of the House had a prior view on a particular piece of legislation, that view would be likely to be reflected in the composition of any Committee appointed following elections. In my view, it is not healthy for a legislative Committee to hear only one side of the arguments. If the Commons membership of Joint Committees were determined by election, that would leave the House of Lords to seek to achieve the necessary balance through appointments in that House. I doubt that Members of the other place would welcome that, as it could fetter their choice considerably.
	On a practical level, I believe that it would be counter-productive to elect Members to serve on Committees undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny. There is usually an imperative to establish a Joint Committee as quickly as possible after the publication of a draft Bill to enable the Committee to complete its work in time for the Bill proper to be introduced in Parliament later in the Session, or by a specified date. A process of elections conducted by the parties would be bound to delay the establishment of Joint Committees, giving the Committees less time to complete their work or prejudicing the Bill’s timetable.
	In addition, I would point out to Members that the membership of the Joint Committee is not imposed by Government or by the usual channels. Members have an opportunity to table amendments to the motion put down, as demonstrated today, and if they wish to, to suggest alternative names to serve on the Committee. The whole House then has an opportunity to vote on the membership. Such is the character of this evening’s debate that I would say that I am not aware of any objection in practice to the proposed membership of the Joint Committee.
	Finally, I should emphasise that to endorse the principle behind the amendment before us would represent a significant change in the way in which we conduct legislative scrutiny. If we are to make such a change, we should do so only after a full investigation of the all the potential consequences, both intended and unintended. That would include proper consultation with the parties affected, including the Liaison and Procedure Committees both in this House and in the other place. Members will recall that the Wright report made a wide range of recommendations designed to improve Parliament’s scrutiny role, but I note that it did not recommend the change suggested in the amendment.
	For that reason, I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press his amendment to a Division today, and I hope that the House will resolve to establish this Committee and allow it to get on with its work.

Angela Eagle: I rise to support the motion on the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill and the Joint Committee therein, and to oppose the amendment.
	The first thing to say is that the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill is a highly contentious piece of legislation. The Bill will offer the choice of three options for Parliament to consider on prisoner voting: a blanket ban on all prisoners having the vote; entitling prisoners serving four years or less to the vote; or entitling prisoners serving six months or less to the vote. It is crucial that legislation as contentious as this be given extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. We on the Opposition side thus support the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise for a period of six months the proposals in this Bill.
	I believe that the decision to pursue the scrutiny of the draft legislation by the means of a Joint Committee of both Houses is perfectly reasonable given the nature of the Bill under consideration, and given the fact that it contains different options on prisoner voting for Parliament to consider. Since 2010, 10 Joint Committees of both Houses have been set up to scrutinise draft Bills. These Committees have tended to be used to scrutinise the most complex pieces of legislation, including on the detention of terror suspects and the reform of the House of Lords. They have also been deployed where Government policy is still to be formed in detail or where cross-party agreement is felt to be crucial to the success of the proposals. Labour Members welcome the establishment of a Joint Committee to scrutinise this particular draft Bill, which I suspect falls into all of those categories at once and has probably managed to create some entirely new ones of its own.
	I believe that it is also right in this instance that the membership of this Joint Committee should be decided in the usual way via the Committee of Selection. It is important that the Joint Committee be filled by Members of both Houses and of both parties who possess the necessary skills and expertise to scrutinise the Bill fully. While I acknowledge that some in this House believe that everything that emanates from the Whips Office of any party is somehow hopelessly tainted, I have to say that I do not share this analysis. I do not think that the usual channels are inherently tainted; in fact, they often work extremely well.
	I make that observation as someone who in my years in this House has both served in the Whips Office and voted against the Whip—not at the same time, I hasten to add! I have also been elected as vice-chair of the parliamentary committee for the Labour party and on the Labour party’s national executive committee against the wishes of this supposedly “all-powerful” Whips Office—so they do not always get their way. It follows that I do not believe that it is necessarily always virtuous if the House bypasses the Whips Office. Deciding to bypass the Whips Office simply because one wishes to bypass the Whips Office is not an argument for changing the way we do things in this instance.
	In the circumstances, I am content for the members of the proposed Joint Committee to be selected by the Committee of Selection. I think that it would be odd for us to change the procedure on a one-off basis for the purpose of this particular Joint Committee, and I agree with the Leader of the House that the Wright Committee did not suggest such a reform in its report. I understand that the Procedure Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), recently announced that they planned to conduct an inquiry into the operation of the Committee of Selection in the coming year. I suspect that the Leader of the House and I may be approached to give evidence to that Committee.

Christopher Chope: Is the hon. Lady surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) supports my amendment?

Angela Eagle: I am somewhat surprised. Although I would never criticise an hon. Member, I should have thought that if the Chairman of the Procedure Committee wished to look into the way in which the Committee of Selection works, he might want to hear the evidence before putting his own views on record. However, he is his own very competent man, and he has his own views on these matters. I hope that he will also have an open mind when the Procedure Committee looks into how we might sensibly change the way in which the Committee of Selection works. I look forward to the work that it will devote to the subject.

Charles Walker: I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Procedure Committee is very independent-minded, and that it will not be led by me.

Angela Eagle: I think that it may be one of the anarchist Committees that we have in the House. Given its membership, I know that it will not be led by anyone, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s undoubted prowess.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Let me reassure the hon. Lady that I am not an anarchist, although I serve on the Committee, and that, actually, we follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) very carefully.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say that the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was demonstrably superfluous?

Angela Eagle: I had never quite imagined that the hon. Gentleman would fall into the anarchist persuasion, but I am glad he has reassured the House that that is not the case.
	It may be advisable for me to return to the subject of the amendment. I believe that it would be wrong for us to adopt a different method for selecting members of the Joint Committee on an ad hoc basis before we have had an opportunity to see what the Procedure Committee might wish the House to consider, and, once its work has been done, to see more details of that work and of the evidence that it wishes to gather. I think that the amendment is premature, and I ask the House to vote against it.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment (a), leave out the names at the end of the motion and insert
	“That the membership of the Committee shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection under Standing Order No. 121 following elections within the parties using whatever democratic and transparent method they choose.”
	The amendment stands in my name and those of quite a few of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as that of at least one Opposition Member.
	I must say that the opening remarks from the two Front Benches, otherwise known as the usual channels, caused me to feel that there was every good reason for us to change our present procedures. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House presented objections relating to both principle and practice. One of his points about practice was that it was important for us to be able to deal with Joint Committees very quickly. The decision to set up this Joint Committee was made in late November, but, some four months later, we still have not set it up. I detected no sense of urgency; perhaps, if I am wrong about that, my right hon. Friend will intervene.
	I do not think that it was a convincing argument that if we were to elect the members of the Committee through our party groups, there would be an unacceptable delay. The delay that has taken place so far has been due to the Government, and no one else can be held responsible for it. Indeed, I have heard suggestions that the Government have always been rather keen on kicking this whole subject into the long grass, and that my amendment, which was not inspired by the Government, was just an extension of the long grass and meant that this whole issue and the appointment of the Joint Committee could be delayed further.
	I do not buy into the notion that there is an issue to do with practical problems because of the question of speed, nor do I buy into the objections in principle. I am not suggesting we should change the standing orders
	and deal with all Joint Committees on the same basis. I am suggesting that this particular subject is unique—I think we can use that over-used word in this instance—because at present we find ourselves before an international court being told we have to change our law when this elected House of Commons has made it clear that we do not wish to change the law. This is not some run-of-the mill situation, therefore.
	It is a unique situation, and it strikes me that it would have been much better for the Executive to have kept their hands well out of it. Whatever they do or do not do is going to be looked at by politicians in the rest of Europe. When the Lord Chancellor introduced the draft Bill, he conceded this was essentially a political issue as much as a legal issue. If the Government were able to say, “We put forward these three alternative proposals in a draft Bill; we then left it to the House of Commons, in its wisdom, to decide who should serve on a Joint Committee; and that Joint Committee took evidence and examined it and reached various conclusions”, the Government would be under no obligation to accept those conclusions. If a Joint Committee, however comprised, was to reach conclusions that were not in accordance with the evidence it received, that would bring the Joint Committee into disrepute.
	I do not accept the principle put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it will be impossible to have a properly balanced Joint Committee if it is elected. I suggest quite the reverse: if a Committee is elected, its members are accountable to the people who elected them. If those elected Committee members do not participate in the Committee proceedings or if they reach perverse conclusions, they will find it very hard to get re-elected.
	When we appoint members to Select Committees or our party groups, we will inevitably be electing mainly the enthusiasts. The Environmental Audit Committee has a lot more enthusiasts for what I would call “greenery” and an acceptance of climate change science than it has members who disagree with that, although I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) has latterly joined the Committee to try to introduce some balance.
	Perhaps the example of that Committee gives the answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If Members feel a Committee is becoming too homogenous and is not being objective in its assessments of the evidence before it, the remedy lies in the Members of this House choosing an alternative member of the Committee to introduce balance. I do not believe only the usual channels can introduce balance into this Committee; quite the reverse, in fact.
	On the issue of whether some Members proposed to serve on the Committee have a prior view, we know that some of them do, as that was expressed in the vote in the House on this subject. Other Members put forward a motion to the Committee that decides on the allocation of time for Back-Bench business; they put their heads above the parapet, and we know whether or not they are serving on that Committee. The same point applies in respect of the matters before us today.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House says, not totally tongue-in-cheek, that it is open to us, as the House, to put forward amendments for alternatives. I am not criticising any Members of this Committee. My amendment is not designed to do that; it is designed to
	ensure that the decision on the membership of the Committee is made by the individual Back-Bench groups of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition. Those groups can then elect the people they would like to see on the Joint Committee. It seems to me that that system would work perfectly well and would distance the Government effectively from any of the Committee’s work.
	As the chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I can say that there is quite a lot of suspicion among the other 46 member countries that the UK Government are trying to ensure that nothing happens very quickly as they realise that the UK Parliament is totally at odds with the judges in the European Court of Human Rights on this issue. If the Lord Chancellor could have said to his counterparts in other countries that he had nothing to do with who was on the Committee, that the usual channels were not involved, that the Government left it to the Members of the House of Commons to choose their own Committee members and that the Government did not have to accept their findings but could merely see what they think, he would have had a better alibi. People looking in from outside might say that the motion is a fix by the usual channels.
	I understand that the Select Committee on Justice undertook an informal bidding process, making representations to the effect that it wanted one of its number to serve on the Joint Committee. The Justice Committee is not the lead Select Committee on this matter—that is the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, of which I happen to be a member. The Justice Committee put forward a number of names that were considered by the usual channels, and one of those names was chosen and is among those in the motion.
	That seems to me to be a totally non-transparent way of dealing with such issues and it is not appropriate that we should set a precedent whereby a Select Committee can start to lobby the Government covertly to have one of its members as a member of a Joint Committee when that Select Committee is not the lead Committee. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has taken evidence on this subject from the Deputy Prime Minister and others, and if we are to give somebody from a Select Committee a place, we have not necessary chosen the right one.
	My point is that the process would be much better dealt with without the Government’s involvement and that is why I hope that Members will feel able to support my amendment—not necessarily by voting for it tonight, but by asking their Whips and colleagues whether the natural development of the Wright Committee reforms would be to introduce a further reform in this regard. That would mean that if we choose to set up a Joint Committee in the future we can do so quickly, knowing what the rules are and demonstrating that we are giving power to the Back Benches on such important issues. That is even more the case with pre-legislative scrutiny.
	After the Government’s rough experience of setting up a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the reform of the other place, I should have thought that they might say that they would do better to draw their neck in and leave it to Members to choose the members of such Committees. They would then be free to decide
	whether to accept the recommendations, taking into account the extent to which those Members have responded positively or otherwise to the evidence put before them.
	I have pleasure in moving the amendment and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to speak about this important subject before we go on to other business before the House this evening.

David Nuttall: rose—

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I do not mean to detain the House too long, but the shadow Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made some important points and I want to respond to a number of them.
	My hon. Friend put some interesting points, but I remind him that when we make changes to our procedures we should proceed on the basis of full consultation and discussion across the House, and on the basis of investigation and recommendation from our Select Committees. As it happens, not only does the Procedure Committee intend to consider questions relating to the Selection Committee, as the shadow Leader of the House made clear, but I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is considering progress on the implementation of the Wright reforms.
	I have not heard in the course of the debate an objection as such to the proposed membership of the Joint Committee from this House, and I perceive no delay on the part of Government once the Lords has completed its process of finding members. My hon. Friend’s arguments left out the Lords in this context. As we are talking about a Joint Committee, it is important to recognise that balancing the Committee is important across both Houses, not just in this House.
	I continue to depart from my hon. Friend on the issue of elections for specific legislative scrutiny. Notwithstanding the points he makes, I think there is a point of principle about the risk of the election of Members to that scrutiny committee prejudicing the process of dispassionate scrutiny. I heard what he said about the nominations coming through a process of consultation within the usual channels. The shadow Leader of the House and I are not the usual channels. The proposal emerged from within the usual channels. If my hon. Friend looks at the proposed membership, I think he will certainly conclude that the proposed membership of the Joint Committee will clearly be dispassionate and independent in its scrutiny, the members of the Committee having taken differing positions themselves and having obvious expertise to bring to the subject.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for taking an intervention. May I remind him ever so nicely that in Northern Ireland we have 1.8 million people? Will he explain why no representative in the House from Northern Ireland has been selected to sit on the Committee? We do have some prisoners in Northern Ireland. It is a very controversial issue in Northern Ireland. Please do not tell me that justice is devolved. I do not sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I sit in this House.

Andrew Lansley: I entirely understand. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the membership of the Committee is not large and it would be difficult to pursue balance across the House. It is in any case the purpose of the pre-legislative scrutiny not to decide on the Bill, but to scrutinise the Bill to ensure that it is in a fit state and to make recommendations so that the House can come on to consider the policy of the Bill and its legislative implementation, which will give Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to comment on it.
	I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) to forgive me if he is still to make his contribution. I anticipated that there would not be an extended debate beyond this point, but having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch I wanted to respond to the debate up to that point because I thought he made important points that were worth responding to and considering in future.

David Nuttall: I do not intend to delay the House for long, because I appreciate that there is other business that we need to get on to, but I wish to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and signed by me and several other hon. Members.
	It seems reasonable to me that the membership of the Joint Committee, in so far as it is drawn from this House, should reflect the views of this House and, therefore, the views of the wider public, which is perhaps more important. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) mentioned in her intervention, none of the Committee members chosen by the Committee of Selection is from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales; they are drawn exclusively from England.
	Fortunately, thanks to the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, we know exactly what this House’s view is on the matter, because on 10 February 2011 it held a debate on the subject. After a full and lengthy debate that lasted most of the day, 256 right hon. and hon. Members took part in the Division, with 234 voting in favour of maintaining the status quo and 22 voting in favour of changing it. Therefore, over 91% of the Members who voted supported the status quo, which I think very much represents the view across the country. It is therefore fair and reasonable that the country would expect any Committee of this House to reflect those views.

Lady Hermon: Would the hon. Gentleman be so kind as to put on the record whether the Government abstained or voted in that key vote last February?

David Nuttall: As far as I am aware—I do not have the voting record in front of me—no members of the Government took part in the Division. Either deliberately or by accident, the Government abstained; it was predominantly Back-Bench Members who took part. That is noteworthy, because it removed more than 100 Members from the vote, so I submit that the figure of 256 is probably relatively representative of the views of the House as a whole. Even if a larger number of Members had taken part, the result would still have reflected the 91.4% against 8.6%.
	I want to make it absolutely clear for the record that I have no objection in principle to any of the Members being put forward by the Committee of Selection. Indeed, I have spoken with them privately and expressed my
	view that that is not why I support the amendment. Rather, what we know is that of the six Members who have been put forward through the Committee of Selection’s convoluted procedure—it is certainly not transparent—only two took part in the Division on 10 February 2011. One voted in favour of the status quo and not giving prisoners the right to vote and the other, who was acting as Teller—I think that is correct—voted in favour of changing the status quo.
	We do not know what the views of the other four were, and that is where there is a problem. If the Government wanted balance on the Committee, that may not occur because the other four are all in favour of the argument or—I know not—are all against, in which case the Committee certainly would not be representative of the views of this House. Either way, there is a problem with the proposal before us. If it were indeed the Government’s view that there should be balance, then perhaps the logic of that argument would be for the six members of the Committee to have been drawn exclusively from those who showed an interest on that occasion back on 10 February 2011, and equally from those who voted for the motion and those who voted against it. Clearly, however, that is not what has happened.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, this is a unique situation. There are grounds for changing what has happened in the past. In response to the point that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a few moments ago, the fact that not only the Chairman but other members of the Procedure Committee have signed and supported the amendment shows that there is a feeling within that Committee that it is sensible and demonstrates the right way forward. On that basis, I am pleased to support the amendment.
	Amendment negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.

Sittings of the House (Wednesday 17 April)

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	That, on Wednesday 17 April:
	(1) the House shall meet at 2.30 pm and the moment of interruption shall be at 10.00 pm;
	(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions), no questions shall be taken other than questions which are in the Speaker’s opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business;
	(3) the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at 2.30 pm and continue for up to four and a half hours; and
	(4) in calculating the period of four and a half hours in paragraph (3) no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting in Westminster Hall may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or in a committee of the whole House.
	The motion before the House proposes two principal changes to the business of the House tomorrow. The first part of the motion provides for the House to sit at 2.30 pm, with the moment of interruption at 10 pm. This is instead of the usual starting time of 11.30 am with the moment of interruption at 7 pm.
	It is not without precedent for the House to change its sitting times to deal with specific, and tragic, circumstances. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members may remember that the House was rightly recalled to pay tributes to the Her Majesty the Queen Mother following her death in 2002, but then also delayed returning from recess to accommodate the funeral arrangements.
	The change in sitting times will allow Members from across the House who wish to pay their respects at the funeral of Baroness Thatcher to do so. The effect of an objection to this motion would be to deny colleagues, friends and others who wish to pay their respects that opportunity. There can be no justification for this. This is a debate about the sitting hours for tomorrow, and it should not be abused by those seeking now to debate the legacy of Baroness Thatcher. There was an opportunity to do that in the debate last Wednesday, and I remind the House that 77 right hon. and hon. Members contributed to that debate.
	I thank Her Majesty’s official Opposition for the way in which they have worked across the House to provide proper respect for the longest serving Prime Minister of the last century. The Leader of the Opposition, the acting shadow Deputy Leader of the House and other Labour Members paid generous tributes in that debate, not necessarily endorsing or agreeing with the policies of Baroness Thatcher but, I thought, very generously paying proper respect. In like spirit, the proposal to change the sitting hours tomorrow, and to defer questions on that day until next week, has been taken after consultation with Her Majesty’s official Opposition, and I am grateful for the approach that they have taken.
	The second effect of the motion is to suspend the operation of the oral questions rota for the day. This, too, is being done following consultation with, and the agreement of, the official Opposition. Should the motion be approved by the House, the consequence for Members
	is that the ballots that have already taken place will be rolled over until next week, and the Table Office has helpfully contacted affected Members to explain this to them.
	It is quite proper, in the circumstances, for the House to defer questions by one week. The Prime Minister takes his responsibilities to this House very seriously, as evidenced by the extent to which he not only responds to questions but makes statements to the House. I am sure that the vast majority of the House will understand what is being proposed and why. It is simply a matter of decency and respect that, in returning from the funeral service and receptions tomorrow, Members should not immediately enter into the character of business customary at Wednesday’s questions.
	As a consequence of the House agreeing to meet at 2.30 pm, paragraphs (3) and (4) of the motion provide for Westminster Hall also to meet at 2.30 pm, which is an obvious and common-sense addition to the first two parts of the motion.
	I do not intend to detain the House any further. This is a simple motion, confined to the times of the House’s sittings tomorrow, and I commend it to the House.

Angela Eagle: It is a pleasure to follow the Leader of the House, who knows that, many times over the past year, we have expressed the view that the Prime Minister seeks to dodge Prime Minister’s questions. We do not yet know when Prorogation will take place, but that may be another occasion when we will not sit on a Wednesday. Could the Leader of the House tell us when Prorogation will be? I pointed out recently that, following the Budget and given when we adjourned for the recess, four weeks will have passed between the Budget being delivered and the Prime Minister dealing with its aftermath in this House. I have argued consistently that the way this House’s business is arranged rather excludes Wednesdays and the accountability that Prime Minister’s questions brings to bear.
	I do not believe, however, that the reasons for changing tomorrow’s sitting hours mean that we can accuse the Prime Minister of dodging Prime Minister’s questions. A former Prime Minister who led this country for 11 years has, sadly, passed away and I think it is right that the business of this House should pause and the din of the Chamber should quieten, so that hon. and right hon. Members, many of whom were personal friends of hers, are able to attend her funeral and reflect upon it subsequently without having to come back to what is often the bear pit of adversarial politics in this country.
	That does not mean that I agree with a single policy that that distinguished Prime Minister brought to this House or the country, and it would be wrong of me to say that I did, but that does not preclude me from having the appropriate amount of respect for her memory, funeral and loved ones. The official Opposition absolutely understand why tomorrow must be different in these very special circumstances. That will not preclude me from checking how many Wednesdays are included in the parliamentary calendar in future, but we absolutely understand why this particular Wednesday cannot be a normal one.

Simon Hughes: On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I support fully the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House.
	Whatever our views about Baroness Thatcher and her policies, it is entirely appropriate that tomorrow the nation does not have Parliament sitting at the same time as an important national funeral. It would also be entirely inappropriate to have a funeral in the morning and for Parliament to come back immediately into a confrontation at the highest level, not least as it would involve the Prime Minister, who follows Baroness Thatcher as leader of the Conservative party.
	I would have thought it was in tune with the wishes of every democrat that we will sit tomorrow. Indeed, there is no proposal that we do not sit. Parliament will go on and will do contentious business, as is entirely appropriate, in considering the Finance Bill. I deduce from what the Leader of the House said that there will be Prime Minister’s questions next week and that the people who won the ballot for this week will ask their questions. I hope that that will happen next week as planned.
	There will be other times to discuss the other arrangements for tomorrow and the Thatcher legacy, but it is right that we pause in the morning for those who want to pay their respects and continue our business without massive confrontation at 2.30 tomorrow.

George Galloway: I have never heard such tosh.
	This House of Commons continued its adversarial, bear-pit, unarmed political combat throughout the darkest days of the second world war. Mr Churchill did not ask for Parliament to be silenced and for confrontations across the House to be forbidden when our soldiers were being laid waste. In the Norway debate, the House of Commons rose perhaps to its finest 20th century moment. Nobody said, “Our armed forces have suffered a disaster. The House of Commons cannot meet. The clash of ideas cannot be heard. We must muffle the drums and silence ourselves.” At Dunkirk, the House clashed without pause. Real war leaders like Mr Churchill understood that the whole point of our being here, the whole point of democracy, the whole point of elections is that we do not suspend normal political activity.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

George Galloway: Happily; I have a lot to say and I may take some time to say it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has missed the rather important point that between 1939 and 1945, general elections were suspended, so democracy was suspended during the war and his history is faulty.

George Galloway: Actually, there were many by-elections, some of which produced spectacular results—as spectacular as the one in Bradford West just over a year ago.
	In any case, is anyone suggesting that Aneurin Bevan did not stand from these Benches and lacerate real war leaders about their conduct of the war? The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is a scholar and a gentleman. He knows well the words that came from Mr Amery on his side at the darkest hour in the Norway debate, which brought about the defenestration of the Prime Minister and the coming to office of Mr Churchill, about whom more, much more, later. We did not suspend our democracy in our darkest hours; why are we suspending it now?
	It was said by one of those in the iron-clad consensus on the Front Benches that this is a national funeral. I am sorry, but it is not a national funeral. There can be a national funeral only when there is a national consensus about the person being buried. That consensus does not exist in relation to Mrs Thatcher. No matter how oft people from the Front Benches fawn upon her, pour honeyed words upon her or even—outside this House, of course—tell lies about her and her record, that will not change. The British establishment, and the Opposition parties in particular, are making a profound misjudgment if they imagine that there are not tens of millions of people in the country, all of whom have votes, who are very angry about a whole range of issues that have arisen. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I hope to adumbrate some of those issues in relation to the motion this evening.
	If I were to speak shortly, it would be with that great New York phrase, “Enough already.” We have had enough of this; it has gone on too long and gone too far, and this—the idea that we should suspend a vital part of our democratic process for a party-political, and private, funeral—puts the tin hat on it.
	Do not get me wrong. I will not be demonstrating at the funeral tomorrow; I believe it is wrong to demonstrate at someone’s funeral, but I will not agree to suspend our democracy so that some of the friends of the deceased do not have to make a choice between attending Prime Minister’s question time or going to the funeral. That choice is up to them to make, and it is of course clear that they could do both, although they would—tender sensibilities though they may have—have to come into the bear pit immediately on their return to the House. But that is what they are here for; that is what they were elected to be here for.
	Harold Wilson, who won four general elections and did not receive a scintilla of the treatment that the British establishment has rolled out for the deceased on this occasion, said that a week was a long time in politics. This week has been a very long time. We were told at the beginning of the week that it was disrespectful to speak of someone so recently dead. I was told on the BBC yesterday that I should hold my peace until Thursday. How much national mourning, without consensus and without justification, are we supposed to observe?
	You know, Mr Speaker, how much personal respect I have for you, so I hope you will accept that I mean nothing personal by this point. However, the decision to muffle Big Ben, just after the BBC muffled “Ding Dong!”, summed the whole thing up. It has become farcical. There is no national consensus around the deceased, and there was no justification for muffling Big Ben because that puts the deceased on a par with Mr Churchill—a very divisive politician. My grandparents helped overturn his car after the count in Dundee in the 1930s when he was thrown out of Parliament in the city.

Jim McGovern: I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. Winston Churchill, then a Liberal MP, was ejected from Dundee in 1922. He served from 1908 to 1922.

George Galloway: It is a very important qualification. He was—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I say, as I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to be led away from the path of virtue, that the point may be of interest to scholars but it is at best tangential to the sittings of the House motion?

George Galloway: As would have been what I was going to say about Neddy Scrymgeour, the great temperance MP who was Mr Churchill’s partner in the two-Member constituency at that time. How we could do with some temperance, some prohibition in the House today, at least as far as the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) is concerned.

Mr Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman is developing his argument, but I ask whether he would be good enough to withdraw the reference to an hon. Member who is not present, and to continue with his main speech.

George Galloway: I happily withdraw the remark. It was unworthy, but I have some history with the hon. Gentleman. I hope you, Mr Speaker, and the House will forgive me for that unworthy detour down Dundee way.
	My point is that Mr Churchill was a deeply divisive figure. He was a man who changed sides, ratted and re-ratted; a man who was in Parliament, out of it and back again; and a man whose conduct of public affairs was very controversial and divisive. However, by the time he died, only a tiny percentage of the population were churlish enough to imagine that such a man should not be given the full 21-gun treatment and the full gun carriage treatment.
	Virtually everybody in this country knows that, were it not for Mr Churchill, this Parliament would either not exist or it would speak in German. I argue that the very existence of the country was saved by Mr Churchill. That makes him worthy of a national funeral. That is what made him—whatever one’s point of view of his domestic politics—deserving of the muffling of the chimes of Big Ben, and deserving of the lowering of the cranes on the Thames.
	No such consensus exists—you must know this, Mr Speaker—about the deceased in this case. Vast tracts of this land—the north, Scotland, the midlands and south Wales, and other industrial areas of this country, which were reduced to distressed areas in Mrs Thatcher’s term of office—have never forgiven her, but they are being asked to pay for this funeral. In fact, they are not being asked; they are being told that they must pay for it.
	The deceased was a great proponent of private enterprise and a great enemy of public expenditure and the role of the state, which she wished to shrink. You were once a devotee of those things, Mr Speaker, but age has brought wisdom, as it has in some respects to all of us. Is that not an irony? As Ken Loach, the great film director, put it, surely we should have put the funeral out to tender to the private sector, and invited companies to sponsor it. Surely that is what Mrs Thatcher would have wanted at
	a time when our pensioners are shivering to death in a long winter that has stretched into the spring. At a time when we are virtually nationally bankrupt, is it right that the public should be told—not asked, but told—that they must pay for a party political funeral? I believe not.
	The public have not been consulted on any of this. If my postbag has any relation to anyone else’s, it must be obvious that a lot of people are very unhappy. The public had one chance, to which I alluded a moment ago. They could download “Ding-Dong!”, the song from “The Wizard of Oz”, as they did in very large numbers, but the state broadcaster, which has led the fawning, censored the music that the public chose with their money in private economic decisions—Mrs Thatcher was a big fan of those.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was awaiting the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman’s sentence, but I struggle to see how what he has just said relates to the terms of the sittings of the House motion, to which I know it was his intention, and is now his intention, immediately to return.

George Galloway: Indeed, Sir. Of course, the backdrop cannot be separated from the motion. Many watching on the Parliament channel will know what the backdrop is—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but that is because they are not used to being watched on the Parliament channel.
	Perhaps that is just as well—[Interruption.] They cannot silence me. Some Members are not for turning, and I am one of them. Better men than they have tried to do so. [An Hon. Member: “You are hardly ever here.”] But when I am here, people listen, unlike some—[Interruption.] Well, I have had a lot of tweets about the speeches that preceded this one, and they are not at all complimentary.
	The backdrop to this motion is clear, and it has been one thing after another. As Mr Macmillan said, it is not one damn thing, it is one damn thing after another. It is the state mourning that was effectively declared by the state broadcaster. It is the decision that the Government made—it is speculated that your office, Mr Speaker, was not wild about the idea—to recall Parliament at vast public expense. Members of Parliament were offered up to £3,700 to fly back from their holidays to attend what was, in effect, a state eulogy for a party political figure, and then to fly back at public expense to their holidays. I hope that IPSA will release the details of who claimed and what they claimed. That was a grotesque and totally unnecessary decision. Monday was the day on which Parliament returned, and Monday was the day on which people could have paid tribute and made the points that they wished to make. That was the second problem. The state mourning was the first, and the unnecessary and fantastically expensive recall of Parliament was the second.
	The muffling of the chimes of Big Ben was the third, the banning of “Ding-Dong!” was the fourth and now we have this motion. The shadow Leader of the House, politely as is her wont, made the point that there is every belief in this House that this Prime Minister likes to avoid Prime Minister’s questions. If he avoids it tomorrow, he will have avoided it for four consecutive weeks—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I am at every Prime Minister’s questions—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I again caution hon. Gentlemen—as I must call them—on the Government Benches: people are listening to this debate, and this Thatcherite chorus, cackling like hyenas, would do better to show a touch of sensitivity to the fact that millions of people in this country hate Margaret Thatcher and those who followed her.
	If the Prime Minister dodges Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow, he will have dodged them for four consecutive weeks. As Mr Wilson said, a week is a long time in politics. Four weeks is a long time to miss Prime Minister’s questions, the only mass audience—

Alec Shelbrooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

George Galloway: I would much prefer to give way to the hon. Gentleman than for him to cackle and wobble his ample girth from a sedentary position.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you rule whether such turns of phrase are parliamentary?

Mr Speaker: The short answer is that what has just been said was distasteful, but was not disorderly. It does not seem to have evoked any great display of misery on the part of the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), but I know that when the hon. Member for Bradford West rises to speak again, he will do so with the degree of calm and measurement of his words for which I know, in future years, he will want to be renowned.

Alec Shelbrooke: There was I under the impression that the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) was a great orator. In the context of his last comments, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to congratulate this Prime Minister on ensuring that Parliament is not absent for four months, and on bringing the House back in September for those two sessions of Prime Minister’s questions that, until recently, did not happen.

George Galloway: That is actually the best point the hon. Gentleman has made all evening. It just goes to show that points made from one’s feet are usually better than points made from a sedentary—indeed, relaxed—position. It is a fair point that Parliament does not retire for the summer for as long as it did in our long period together, Mr Speaker, in the House of Commons. But facts are chiels that winna ding, as we say in Scotland. Every Wednesday, the Prime Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box and face the music for everything that has happened in the previous week. For four weeks it will have been the case that the Prime Minister has not done so. At a time when the British economy is in desperate trouble, the Prime Minister has not been able to be questioned about it. At a time when a Budget has come and gone, which has been near universally regarded—

Chris Kelly: Welcomed.

George Galloway: Welcomed? My goodness. I do not know where it was welcomed—certainly not by the financial commentators; certainly not by the markets; certainly not by the public; certainly not by the opinion
	polls—but the Prime Minister has not been able to be questioned about it. The Prime Minister has not been able to be questioned about anything for four weeks, neither domestic nor international. Our country is involved in very many serious matters overseas—you will be very happy that I do not seek to dilate upon them, Mr Speaker—and the Prime Minister has not been able to be questioned about them.
	I just feel, and I think that the attendance here this evening indicates, that there are many who feel, whether they are in the official Opposition or not, that this has all gone too far. An attempt at canonisation of a person around whom there is—I see that Mr Speaker is frowning. I speak as a religious man. I am not against canonisation where it is justified, but there has to be a consensus before one can be canonised, and no such canonisation is possible—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is an insistent noise from the Back Benches, which I think is rather unseemly. Members cannot both cavil at what is being said and make a raucous noise themselves. I simply say to the hon. Member for Bradford West that I was not frowning at him; I was listening attentively to him.

George Galloway: Thank you, sir.
	The point is that beatification and canonisation is something that can happen only when there is a consensus. There is no such consensus about the former Prime Minister, yet people are acting, the state is acting. The state broadcaster and now the parliamentary authorities are asking us to accept things that are too close to royal. Mrs Thatcher famously had a slightly fraught relationship with the palace, and I can understand why. Mrs Thatcher might to many Government Members have been great, but she was not great to up to 60% of the electorate when she was alive, and, according to the polls, more than 50% of the people now being polled are against her—strongly against her and feel that she did bad things here and abroad. It brings into discredit this kind of funeral, this kind of state occasion, if it is awarded when many people in the country feel it is unjustified, and feel that it is being rammed down their throats for partisan and ideological reasons, for which they are being asked to pay.
	Through you, Mr Speaker, I caution the establishment of which I suspect you are not fully regarded as a member, though you ought to be, because your office is one of the great offices in the land. I say to the establishment, through you, Mr Speaker, that it has gone too far. There has been too much of this. It is too expensive, too elaborate, too regal, and many people in the country are unhappy about it. And to compound it all by effectively cancelling a vital part of British political life would be to add insult to the injury already suffered.
	My last point—[Hon. Members: “Hurray!”] Gentlemen—[Hon. Members: “And ladies!”]—and ladies, although the misbehaviour is coming exclusively from gentlemen, as I think they are called, on the Government Benches, my point is this. This funeral did not have to be organised so that it would clash with Prime Minister’s Question Time. It could have been held today or on Thursday. The state was vitally involved in the organisation of this funeral—we know that, because we are paying for it—and it was the state that organised the clash with Prime Minister’s Question Time, so why should the
	House of Commons be asked to accept the abrogation of its proper role tomorrow, given that the Government are responsible for the clash?
	It is too late now to change the time of the funeral, but it is not too late for the House to refuse to abandon its responsibilities at Prime Minister’s questions. If the House divides on this at the end of the evening, as I hope it will, I hope that a decent number of Members of Parliament will reflect the feelings, if not of their own constituents, then of the tens of millions of constituents of many of us on the Opposition Benches—and of some Government Members too—who feel that the adoration of the Maggie has gone far enough.

Dennis Skinner: It is almost like history repeating itself. In the mid ’70s, I came down on the train and my Whip told me that there would be a few tributes to Anthony Eden and that then the House would finish for the day. I thought, “Surely, that’s not fair. We’re actually packing up because Anthony Eden, who was living in the Caribbean, has died. So the tributes will be paid and then the House will finish for the rest of the day.” I had an argument with the Labour Whip, and then I went in for the tributes. I had not been here very long and I am not so sure I thought at the time it would be a good idea for me to say anything, because, as sure as night followed day, a lot of people were going to pay these tributes to Anthony Eden, who some of them had never even seen. So it is not as if this has not happened before.
	I had been a miner for 20-odd years, I said that when I worked down the pit and somebody died, four people took him out on a trolley along the rails, and they were allowed to go home and the rest of the pit continued to work, because people like us had managed to secure a tiny agreement with the National Coal Board to get £250 for the miner’s widow. On that basis, the rest of us went to work. What I am trying to convey is that the people who concern me now are the people out there having to suffer austerity, the benefit cuts and the increasing costs of their own funeral. They are just like the people who concerned me back in the days of 1975—the miners I had left behind in order to speak for them in Parliament. I remember all the Tories walking out the moment I made that kind of criticism. I suppose it is an indication of the split Tory party that some of them are staying today, because they have not followed their leader. Indeed, the leader has not ordered them out.
	Let’s not kid ourselves. We hear talk about the thing that we sometimes suggest has gone away: class. That’s what it is: it is about class. It’s about the fact that people out there have to live their lives in a different way and that there is one rule for those at the top and another for those at the bottom. It has never changed—I wish it had, but it hasn’t.
	I heard about the chain of events—because that is what it was: it seemed to grow like Topsy. First of all there was going to be some sort of ceremonial funeral. The next thing we hear—I have to say it to you, Mr Speaker—is you telling us that the chimes of Big Ben are going to stop. Then we hear that we are going to abandon Prime Minister’s Question Time. What’s it all about? That is why the people out there are angry—a
	lot of them. I am not suggesting for a minute that there is a majority—I never have—but I do believe that this Government are out of touch with the people out there on a big scale, and this in the same week when benefits were cut again. We should of course have Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Bob Russell: I’ve got question No. 13.

Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman may have No. 13, but in the absence of that list I have got about 15 questions in my pocket to ask. Of course we should have Prime Minister’s Question Time. The people out there would want us to put the case about how they manage to make ends meet. We are talking about the people who commit suicide because they are up to their necks in debt and they have got so many callers knocking on their door—first it’s Wonga and then it’s God knows how many others. That is what is happening in our society among the working class.
	I do not think there is any doubt, whatever we think, that Mrs Thatcher was a divisive character. I am too, but I am not Prime Minister. I know that there is the desire within a lot of us to fight at the edges and take extra-parliamentary action and all the rest of it—and what’s wrong with that?—but let us not give the impression that Margaret Thatcher was different or that she was cool with everybody. She had an agenda the moment she got in—she actually got in on my birthday.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Which one?

Dennis Skinner: Way back.

Nadine Dorries: I just want to make the point that Baroness Thatcher is lying just yards from us in her final night in this Palace. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that just on this night, when she is only yards away, in the name of nothing other than good taste, it might be as well that we called this to an end?

Dennis Skinner: I am just making a statement about the fact that during the course of Margaret Thatcher’s parliamentary time, especially when she was Prime Minister, she was divisive, first, in the sense that she got rid of all the wets so that she could set about her agenda. There is no question at all about that—I know that has nothing to do with Question Time being abandoned, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. A moment or two ago the hon. Gentleman was very much on the issue of Prime Minister’s questions and I know that he will wish to return to it.

Dennis Skinner: I do not need any lectures from Tories about what they did to Mrs Thatcher, because I remember that night and the following day, when she stood at that Dispatch Box. She had not had a night’s sleep and she was making her final speech in Parliament. Why was she making the final speech in Parliament? It was not because the Labour MPs had put a knife in her back. There is no question about that: a succession of Tory MPs had gone to her in the night and said, “I don’t think you should run again for the second ballot.” That is the truth of it. So, whatever I am saying here today does not compare with the fact that a woman who had
	won three elections in a row then suffered the indignity of being kicked out like a dog in the night by her own Members of Parliament. That is the truth of it, and whatever I say today is minimal compared with that.
	Yes, I would like to have Question Time tomorrow, of course, and I have a few questions prepared. Perhaps I should ask the Leader of the House my questions; he might answer them when he winds up. One of them is undoubtedly about getting rid of the bedroom tax. I also want to tell the Prime Minister that it would not be a bad idea to do something about agency workers. There is all this talk about immigration, but the real problem in our society is the fact that a majority of the foreign people who come to this country are now being dictated to by agencies, and it is time we got rid of them. They are undercutting the indigenous workers. I worked with Poles in 1948, down the pit. Why were there no rows? Why did nobody get worked up about the displaced persons—the Poles and the Ukrainians? Because they were in the union with us, and they were paid the same wages. And there wasn’t an agency in sight. So that is another question that we could have put tomorrow.
	We could also have put a question about doing something, now that the country is skint, like we did in 1945—

Alec Shelbrooke: Who caused the skint?

Dennis Skinner: It was caused by that great economic tsunami that swept across the world—[Interruption.] And why did it sweep across the world? Because in 1989, in one of her last acts, Mrs Thatcher talked about the brave casino economy, the big bang in the City and deregulation. That was the moment it began. We never knew when it would turn into a recession, but we knew that somehow or other, that society of instant gratification would cause a recession at some time. That is how it all began.
	It was just like that with the share-owning democracy. We could have discussed that tomorrow. Mrs Thatcher, that non-divisive character, sold off all the public utilities. She said, “We’ll sell off all the public utilities—gas, electricity and all the rest—and everybody will have shares. You can buy them off Sid and you’ll be able to be part of that great British share-owning democracy.” What happened to that? What happened to the share-owning democracy? EDF is now owned by French electricity; E.ON is owned by Germans; Scottish Power is owned by Spain’s Iberdrola; and npower is owned by the German company RWE. Anglian Water has gone to Canada, and Thames Water is owned by the Germans—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely in order, and it is relevant to the motion if he refers to matters that he would raise if there were a question session. In other words, he can raise the questions, but it is not in order for him also to provide the answers.

Dennis Skinner: So who owns Orange and T-mobile? Have a guess. France and Germany! Who owns Cellnet and O2? Spain! Who owns Arriva buses? The German Deutsche Bank!

Paul Maynard: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s diatribe, and to his list of privatised utilities. May I suggest that
	he gets a new researcher? EDF stands for Électricité de France and it has been French for as long as it has existed. Please will he get a new researcher, to put him out of his misery as well as ours?

Dennis Skinner: Yes, the hon. Gentleman has made his own case. Gatwick is owned by South Korea; Cadbury’s is owned by the United States; the M6 toll is owned by Australia’s Macquarie bank—on and on it goes. We could, then, talk about bringing the public utilities back into public ownership.
	The whole concept of Thatcher was to divide and rule. She was also the one who said that “There is no such thing as society”—

Alec Shelbrooke: Keep going, keep going.

Dennis Skinner: Yes, I know the hon. Gentleman likes it. That is why he is a thorn in the side of the leader of the Tory party now. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is falling out with him.
	What I am saying is that it is important to remember that the people out there know where Thatcher stood. They have not forgotten it. I am talking about those communities where shipbuilding was destroyed in the early ’80s and where the steel industry at Corby and various other places was smashed when Thatcher brought in MacGregor, then brought him back, paying a £1.5 million transfer fee to Lazard’s bank for him to shut, it were said, about 20 or 30 pits. What happened in practice? We had 150 pits at the end of 1985 pit strike, and by the time Thatcher went, there were only 30 left. That is why people out there are angry, and why they demand of us—at least a few of us—to speak the truth on their behalf. That is why I am all in favour of Question Time because I have a list of questions I would like to ask the Prime Minister every single week.
	Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the chance to talk about this issue. It is not about personalities; it is all about class. We must never forget that. We should remember where we come from. I remember my own family—with nine kids, who did not have two ha’pennies to rub together—and that is still embedded in my soul. That is why I speak as I do. I do not want to change; I never will. That will not get my hands on the Dispatch Box, but that is not a luxury that it has ever bothered me to get. It is important to remember that these words of mine do not come out of my mouth because of envy or greed, but because I believe that we have to look after those people who do not have two ha’pennies to rub together. That should be what motivates us every day of the week, including at Prime Minister’s Question Time. When the Labour party understands that as we do here today, it will be better for it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Paul Flynn: It is a daunting prospect to follow two speeches that do great credit to this Chamber. I look forward to the next election when the voters in many lucky constituencies will have the chance of putting right the major defect in this House. We are elected here to represent how the country looks: at the moment there are more women here, but not enough of them; there are more ethnic minorities here, but not enough of them—and there is a terrible shortage of octogenarians. The people of Bolsover and Newport West will have a chance to correct that in future.
	My point will be brief, but it is one of great importance. It is not just the pantomime of Prime Minister’s questions
	that will be absent tomorrow; also absent will be the valuable recent tradition of announcing the names of the fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am afraid that the Government have form on that. On two occasions, the announcement was changed from Prime Minister’s Question Time—the moment of the week of maximum attendance by Members and maximum attention by the press and public—once to a Monday and once to a Tuesday. It was only because of an outcry by Back Benchers that it was restored to its proper place.
	There are other indications that the Government wish not to publish the names of the fallen, by which I mean the practice of reading out the names—it has been done—of the 179 fallen in Iraq and of the fallen in Afghanistan. It is now part of our orders in the House that that is not permitted. Why? Lance Corporal Jamie Webb died on 26 March, and was repatriated to this country on 4 April. Did anyone see any publicity about that? Did anyone realise that the event had taken place?
	I went down to Brize Norton to inspect the facilities for the repatriation of our fallen soldiers. I was grateful to the Prime Minister for writing to me after last Wednesday’s debate in the House, because Brize Norton is in his constituency. Those facilities were very sensitively conceived, and one can think of hardly any improvement that could be made. There is provision for counselling, and rooms have been allocated for the coffins to be laid out with the appropriate religious regalia. Also—this is very touching—because many of the fallen were the fathers, or perhaps in some cases the mothers, of young children, a room has been fitted out with Peppa Pig toys for the children who turn up.
	However, I believe that, sadly, an attempt has been made to hide the event at Brize Norton. A special entrance has been constructed so that the main entrance, and the attention that it might receive, can be avoided. When the procession went through the attractive town of Wootton Bassett, it was a touching sight. Passers-by would stop and bow their heads in respect and reverence. Now, however, rather than going through the main town, the procession skirts the local village and goes on to the main road, where no one can show respect.
	I think it a great shame that there was no prime ministerial announcement of the death of Lance Corporal Webb. That meant that the country could not pay tribute to the 441st of our soldiers to die in Afghanistan. We hear today that we went into Helmand province in 2006 in order to reduce the growth of drug activity there. At that time only two soldiers had died in combat. Now 441 have died, and the growth of drug activity is at record level. I think it absolutely right for us to meet and to bring that part of Prime Minister’s Question Time back into being.
	I congratulate my hon. Friends on their speeches. I agree with much of what they said. It would have been possible for the funeral to take place on a different day, and for Prime Minister’s Question Time to take place here. It is a great shame that although there was a minor announcement of that recent death, we have not paid that soldier the full respect that he so richly deserves.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was present for Defence questions yesterday, and heard the Minister of State,
	Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), pay tribute to the recently fallen.
	I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for what she said earlier. It put me in mind of a caller to “Any Answers” on Radio 4 on Saturday, who said that, in his view, it was not a matter of whether one supported or opposed what Margaret Thatcher had done, but a matter of understanding what was proper, decent and respectful in relation to someone who had clearly been of immense importance to the country. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newport West said in the debate last Wednesday that history would judge her to have been a great Prime Minister.
	The hon. Lady asked about the date of prorogation. When she is able to tell me that we have completed all the business whose completion is required in the current Session, I shall be able to tell her the date of prorogation, but I cannot do so until then.
	No one would accuse the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) of having changed, but what did change was this country under Margaret Thatcher. Moreover, at each of the elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987 she was returned with an increased vote from the people of the country. That was another change.
	The hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) asked the House to search for a consensus. I am not sure that anyone has ever established a consensus with the hon. Gentleman. However, in the midst of a litany of false analogies and irrelevancies, he did say one relevant thing. He said “That is what we are here for: to be here.” I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that since his election on 30 March last year, he has been here for just 13% of the votes.

George Galloway: rose—

Andrew Lansley: No, I am responding to the debate.
	Let me just say this: it seems to me that, to coin a phrase, the hon. Gentleman broke his own bat before coming to the crease.

George Galloway: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. He would not want to mislead the House or the public on that point. First, I was elected on 29 March, and the House of Commons has been on holiday 50% of the time since then. I am in the House of Commons every day; I just do not want to vote for Tweedledum or Tweedledee—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat?
	There are two issues here. First, it was not clear to me, but it has since been signalled to me, that the Leader of the House has concluded his speech; I thought he was giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should not accuse someone of misleading the House, which I thought I heard him suggest.

George Galloway: Mr Speaker, I said he “would not want to” mislead the House.

Mr Speaker: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction. There is no argument.
	The debate has been concluded by the Leader of the House. Those who wished to speak were called to do so. I do not think anybody would say I have been other than fair in facilitating a proper debate, and I listened respectfully to all the speeches, as I always do.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 245, Noes 13.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That, on Wednesday 17 April:
	(1) the House shall meet at 2.30 pm and the moment of interruption shall be at 10.00 pm;
	(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 21 (Time for taking questions), no questions shall be taken other than questions which are in the Speaker’s opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business;
	(3) the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at 2.30 pm and continue for up to four and a half hours; and
	(4) in calculating the period of four and a half hours in paragraph (3) no account shall be taken of any period during which the sitting in Westminster Hall may be suspended owing to a division being called in the House or in a committee of the whole House.

Business without Debate

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Motion made,
	That, for the purposes of its approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees).—(Joseph Johnson.)

Hon. Members: Object.

SERGEI MAGNITSKY CASE: VISA RESTRICTIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joseph Johnson.)

Robert Buckland: I am very glad to have the opportunity through an Adjournment debate to raise further the case of Sergei Magnitsky. I am grateful to hon. Members and my hon. Friends for joining me to support a case of continuing concern that involves not only the reputation of Russia but by necessity the response that we as a nation make to this scandal. I am very grateful that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is here to listen and respond.
	I should remind the House that Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer whose incarceration and death at the hands of the Russian authorities remains a standing reproach to that regime. He met his fate for raising the alarm about a $230 million fraud committed against the Russian state by its own officials. Mr Magnitsky would have been 41 on 8 April, not a dissimilar age to me. I am a fellow lawyer. I was able to practise without fear or favour. He was not.
	Just over a year ago, the House debated the issue and took that opportunity to call for the Government to take action to target those individuals who are implicated in Mr Magnitsky’s death, and to take action in the form of visa and capital restrictions. A number of us called upon the Government to follow in the footsteps of, among others, the United States Senate by passing legislation to enact visa bans.
	What has happened since then? In Russia things have gone from bad to worse. In March this year the Russian authorities closed the investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death, having found that no crime had been committed, despite the findings of two independent domestic commissions. The Russian authorities also announced that they found no evidence of a link between Mr Magnitsky’s arrest and death in custody and his testimonies implicating Government officials in the theft of moneys from the Russian Treasury. Last month the Russian authorities finally launched a posthumous trial against Mr Magnitsky, the first in Russian history. That is not only an offence to natural justice but something truly out of the theatre of the absurd.

Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that anyone who puts the words “Russia”, “untouchables” and “Sergei” into a search engine will find the full documented history of what can be proven from Russian documents themselves?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Once again, Google manages to set in stone important words that lead inexorably to a wealth of evidence linking individuals to the unlawful killing of that lawyer.
	I was saying that Mr Magnitsky’s trial is truly out of the theatre of the absurd. In fact, it is redolent of the ninth century, when a posthumous trial of a pope was held by his successor—Pope Formosus was already dead when he was tried for his crimes. We have moved on 1,100 years, but Russia seems to be going backwards.
	Outside Russia the situation has also moved on. In December last year President Obama signed into law the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act,
	which removes United States travel and banking privileges from those identified as involved in the persecution and eventual death of Mr Magnitsky. It also penalises those involved in the fraud uncovered and other human rights abuses. I was pleased to learn that only last Friday the United States Treasury publicly listed the first 18 Russian Government officials to be banned from the United States under that law.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this important debate. Does he agree that although our relations with Russia are complex and delicate, we should never shy away from condemning human rights abuses and removing privileges from those associated with them?

Robert Buckland: I entirely agree. That sums up the thrust of the approach that I believe we should be taking in this case.
	The European Parliament passed another resolution on the Magnitsky case in October last year, recommending that sanctions be enacted on the Russian officials concerned following the lack of progress in Russia and what we now know to be the effective closure of their investigation. In this House, the Foreign Affairs Committee has issued recommendations asking for the list of banned human rights violators to be made public, with specific reference to the Magnitsky case.

Nadine Dorries: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is going to highlight that America has gone much further in both addressing the problem and doing something about it. Will he call for similar action to be taken in this House?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I have referred to the Act of both Houses of Congress, so it is clear that the United States has gone down the legislative route and is taking action. That is something I urge the UK Government to consider very seriously. There are two ways of doing that: either passing legislation or using existing powers to deny visas to those who are implicated. I will return to that point shortly.
	I am also heartened that many legislators in the French, Swedish and German Parliaments have taken the opportunity over the past year, as we have done, to debate and condemn the scandal emerging from this disturbing case. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), offered some reassurance in the debate last year that the UK Government have expressed many times to the Russian Government their serious concerns about the situation, and I accept that the Government take human rights issues very seriously when considering our relations with Russia.
	I also note that the Government said that they felt it best to wait to see how other countries such as the United States reacted and responded before we made any final decisions. Well, action has now been taken: other countries have moved on this. Not only that, but the situation has worsened dramatically, in the absurd, farcical way that I have outlined. We cannot stand on the sidelines any more. It is time that we took action, either in the form of legislation to enact our own visa
	restrictions against those involved in this grave injustice or through Executive action on a case-by-case basis to deny visa applications when made.
	I have several questions for my right hon. Friend to which I know that he will do his best to respond. First, with regard to activities here in the United Kingdom of anyone implicated in this scandal, is an investigation under way, and what steps have been taken and what progress made?
	Secondly, what is the status of the investigation into the sudden and unexplained death in Surrey some months ago of Alexander Perepilichnyy, a 44-year-old Russian business man who was linked as a witness to this scandal and who suddenly died in what can only be described as unexplained circumstances?
	Thirdly, will the Government consider, on a case-by-case basis, the list of 280 persons that United States Congressman Jim McGovern has submitted to the US State Department detailing their role in this scandal, along with links to documents? Will the Government consider whether to issue those mentioned on that list with a ban forbidding their entry into the United Kingdom, in accordance with the policy that denies entry to known human rights abusers? Fourthly, will the Government support the European Parliament’s call to remove EU visa and banking privileges from the officials involved in the Magnitsky case?
	I understand the diplomatic complexities that we face in poking a stick into a hornets’ nest, and I know how important our emerging trade relationship with Russia is. Russia has an important role to play, whether it is to do with the balance of our economy in Europe, with regional security, or with wider global security. None the less, it is simply not tenable for us to turn a blind eye to this situation. I accept that approaching it in a heavy-handed manner would perhaps be inappropriate, but we should make it crystal clear that we are not seeking to intervene in the judicial processes of another country but maintaining our right, as a free country, to criticise constructively and to operate our borders in a way that we see fit.
	We should carefully enact visa restrictions so as to penalise those who are clearly linked to this and, indeed, other human rights violations in Russia. I believe that this would have a measurable impact on the lifestyles of many members of the Russian elite who come to London because it is an attractive city in which to stay and in which to shop. I ask this simple question: why should these people be allowed to shop when this injustice remains unaddressed?

Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman is to be warmly congratulated on the subject of this debate. Does he not think, though, that his party would be better working in groups such as the Christian Democrats, its natural home, rather than being allied with groups that often contain many members of Putin’s party and other right-wing parties? Would that not be a way forward for his party so that it could attack these injustices with greater independence and vigour?

Robert Buckland: The Conservative party is not a sister party of United Russia. I accept that some work is done in the Council of Europe, but it would be unfair to say that we are in any form of grouping with that party. Many Conservative Members would regard such an
	association as inappropriate and undesirable, and that gives us, as Conservatives and as freedom-lovers, the leeway and the freedom to make the points that my hon. Friends and I seek to make.

Peter Bottomley: Put simply, this is an issue not of party blocs, but of right and wrong. As the leader of the delegation of British MPs to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, I was pleased that we raised the issue of Sergei Magnitsky at a meeting. The leader of the Russian delegation, Mr Nikolay Kovalyov, who is a member of the Duma and a former director of the FSB who was succeeded by Vladimir Putin, listened with interest and respect to what we said. We did not get what we wanted from the Russian delegation, but I think they understand that Russia will be judged in part by how it turns from looking at Sergei Magnitsky—the person who tried to defend Russia—to looking at the persons who have stolen money from the Russian people themselves.

Robert Buckland: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Like him, I have had the opportunity to address some of these issues directly with Russian politicians who have visited this place and sought a dialogue. It is important that none of us shies away from using every opportunity to raise difficult issues and to challenge in a proper way.

Jim Shannon: rose—

Robert Buckland: I will give way one last time.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I asked him beforehand if he would agree to it. Has he considered whether the Government and the Minister could address the issue of the assets of those involved who may be in the United Kingdom? That might be a way of making them accountable for their past misdemeanours.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and think that that option should be considered. This issue does not stop at visas; capital restrictions would be a real way of hitting these people where it hurts. To return to my earlier point, it is a matter of reproach that such people are allowed to be economically active in our country while a glaring injustice remains unaddressed.
	A huge fraud was committed against the people of Russia by their own officials. I am sure that if they wished to unravel this financial conspiracy they would have our full-throated support and co-operation, but in the absence of such an acknowledgement and action it is only right that Britain sends a clear message to those implicated in this scandal that we are on the side of justice and that those who do not share those values do the eternal name of Russia no service and are not welcome here.

David Lidington: I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing a debate on this important subject. The fact that Members from a range of political parties are present—some of whom have contributed by way of intervention—is a very clear message, not just to people who follow these affairs in the United Kingdom, but, I hope, to those in Russia
	who pay attention to our proceedings and those who do so on behalf of the Russian Government, that the case of Sergei Magnitsky has not been and will not be forgotten and that the fact that the causes of his death are not being properly investigated and no one is being held to account for his treatment while in prison in Russia cannot but do serious and growing damage to Russia’s reputation, not just in the United Kingdom, but in many other countries in Europe and around the world.
	I want to begin by expressing my sympathy on behalf of the Government to the family and friends of Sergei Magnitsky. The tragic circumstances of his death have been outlined eloquently by my hon. Friend today and by many hon. Members in previous parliamentary debates on this subject. Every element of this case is of concern to the Government. The circumstances of Mr Magnitsky’s arrest, detention and eventual death, and the subsequent handling of the case by the Russian authorities are deeply troubling. I fully appreciate the strength of feeling about this case from many Members of the House.
	As I have made clear in the past, the Government agree entirely with the sentiment that lay behind the resolution of this House of 7 March 2012, namely that we should defend human rights, condemn those who abuse such rights and tackle a culture of impunity for abusers, wherever the abuse takes place and whoever is responsible. In particular, the clear wish of the House in the resolution was to secure justice for Mr Magnitsky.
	During the debate last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) made it clear that the Government would continue to handle the case within the long-established practices of this Government and previous Governments. He undertook to re-examine the situation after the passage of the American Act to ascertain whether there were lessons that we might draw for our own policy.
	In recent weeks, the Russian authorities have formally closed the investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death without any results. That happened despite the fact that it was not some outside body—not some non-governmental organisation or foreign Government—that concluded in 2011 that Mr Magnitsky’s death was probably the result of having been severely beaten and denied medical treatment, but the Russian presidential committee on human rights. It is therefore all the more dismaying that the Russian authorities should have closed the investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death without results.

Peter Bottomley: Would it be possible and diplomatically appropriate for this debate to be passed, with respect, to His Excellency the Russian ambassador in London, with an invitation to have a meeting, on or off the record, with Members of Parliament who are interested in hearing what he has to say, at which he could also, if he would be prepared to, hear what we have to say?

David Lidington: From my knowledge of the Russian ambassador in London, I am sure that he will be paying close attention to what is being said in the House this evening and that no prompting will be necessary. I am
	sure that he and his team in the embassy will take the words of my hon. Friend as an invitation for such a conversation to take place.
	Perhaps even more worrying than their closing of the investigation is that the Russian authorities have launched a posthumous prosecution of Mr Magnitsky on charges of fraud. I confess that there is something macabre about such a spectacle. My understanding is that such a procedure is within the ambit of the Russian constitution and Russian law, but that it has been used on only exceptional occasions in the past. Trying a dead man and a man seen by many internationally as a whistleblower, to put it mildly, undermines efforts to tackle the perception of widespread corruption within Russia.
	I am afraid that we have to conclude from what has happened in recent weeks in Russia that there is no evidence that the passage of the Act in the United States has brought or is likely to bring closer the outcome that all of us wish to see, which is justice for Mr Magnitsky’s family and a thorough, above-board investigation into his death. Altering our own fair and long-established practice of entry requirements for foreign nationals seeking to come to the UK would be unlikely to contribute to achieving justice for Mr Magnitsky either.
	The duty of confidentiality means that the details of individual cases are not routinely discussed. As the House knows, the United Kingdom does not prejudge evidence against individuals speculatively.
	When visa applications are made, they are considered on their individual merits, taking into account all circumstances and information available to us at that time. As the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and I have regularly made clear in this House and outside, where credible evidence exists, immigration rules empower us to deny entry to those who abuse human rights. It is a declared policy of the present Government that people against whom there is credible evidence of complicity in the abuse of human rights, should not normally expect to be granted admission to the United Kingdom.
	We continue to raise the Magnitsky case with the Russian Government, making it clear that in our view a lack of progress in the case is at odds with the efforts they are making to demonstrate the independence of their judiciary, and to portray Russia as an attractive place for foreign investors. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the Magnitsky case with Foreign Minister Lavrov during talks in London last month, and I did the same when I met Deputy Foreign Minister Titov in Moscow in February. Recent developments in the Magnitsky case will also be discussed, as a matter of serious concern, by senior officials at the next bilateral human rights dialogue between the United Kingdom and Russia. I remind the House that the United Kingdom is unique among all EU member states in holding annual bilateral meetings to allow formal discussions about human rights. That gives us the opportunity to hold Russia to account on the human rights obligations into which it has entered through its participation in various United Nations conventions, and in the European convention on human rights.
	Let me try to respond to the specific questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon. He asked about allegations that members of the so-called “untouchables” have been complicit in criminal offences committed in the United Kingdom. In relation to that, however, and to a couple of his other questions, he will
	understand that we have independent investigating and prosecuting agencies in this country, and it is not for Ministers to judge the credibility or strength of particular pieces of evidence. On the first question, we have a Serious Organised Crime Agency whose job it is to prevent, detect and contribute to the reduction of serious and organised crime, to gather store and analyse information about such crime, and to deliver the statutory requirement set out in legislation and international treaties.
	For reasons the House will understand, SOCA’s policy is to neither confirm nor deny any details of its activity, files it may have received, or specific requests concerning named subjects. However, that agency is always on the look out for and ready to investigate credible allegations of crimes of a serious international character that may have been committed.
	My hon. Friend also asked about the death in Surrey of Mr Perepilichnyy. At present his death is still being investigated by the Surrey police, which they are treating as unexplained, and I therefore do not think I can comment or speculate on a live police investigation. Our understanding is that Surrey police believe they have access to all the assistance they currently require to carry out their investigation into the cause of death. My hon. Friend asked whether the Government would take into consideration the list of 280 people allegedly involved in the Magnitsky case that Congressman Jim McGovern submitted to the state department. As apparent from my earlier remarks, the Home Office would not consider documents provided speculatively in the absence of an actual visa application from an individual. Having said that, when a visa application is made, it is considered on its merits, and all circumstances and information available to us at that time are taken into account. When credible evidence exists that a person has been involved in human rights abuses, they should not expect to be allowed entry to the UK.
	My hon. Friend asked about EU visa and banking privileges. We would be willing to looking at any proposals at EU level and to discuss them with our EU partners. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the question of asset freezes. For the reasons I gave earlier, we do not believe that introducing asset freezes along the lines that the United States has introduced them would contribute to the objective we seek. Asset freezes would also need to meet legal tests. When assets are frozen by the UK or another democracy, they can find that such decisions are challenged in the courts. There are ongoing cases in which even UN and EU asset freezes against individuals are being challenged through the courts. There would have to be credible evidence that could, if necessary, be tested in a court to justify asset freezes in any individual case.
	The promotion and protection of human rights continues to be a key priority in our bilateral relationship with Russia. In recent months, we have seen a worsening of the human rights situation in that country, whether in relation to the Magnitsky case, the restrictive legislative changes on freedom of assembly, the moves against the opposition, the inspections of non-governmental organisations, or the draft legislation to curtail freedom of assembly for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Those concerns are set out in the Foreign Office’s “Human Rights and Democracy” report, which the Foreign Secretary launched yesterday.
	We will continue to press Russia to take the initiative to ensure that the Magnitsky case and other cases are brought to thorough and transparent conclusions. That would send a positive signal on the protection of human rights and democracy in Russia.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.